• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

The homosexual subculture among Catholic clergy


Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,085
The scales are beginning to fall from my eyes on the level of homosexuality among Catholic clergy. I always knew that a significant minority were of a gay inclination, if chastely, and that a small minority were sexually active homosexuals. However, it is becoming apparent that, particularly since the 1960s and 1970s, a homosexual subculture has appeared in many seminaries, by which I mean openly and actively homosexual, calling each other by girls' names, and so on. It appears that the St. Andrews seminary in Scotland that Cardinal O'Brien once ran had such a culture, and others like it. I am beginning to comprehend the scale of the problem, the infiltration of the Church by a homosexual subculture which is both hypocritical (many of them are the loudest in condemning gay marriage and the like) and extremely damaging to the moral authority of the Church. It is nothing short of a disgrace.

It has also become apparent that a significant number of clergy are so liberal and relativist in their approach to Catholic teaching, and so many among them practicing homosexuals, including in high places, that there is a need now to act to counter this sect. While not blaming child-abuse on homosexuality, which would be absurd, it is apparent that the specifically ephebophile abuse (the majority of abuse cases) is in part down to those who for some reason believe that there is no hypocrisy in being a Catholic priest or higher and preaching against homosexual activity while indulging it in themselves. I didn't used to believe there was any link at all, believing it a silly and unfair thing to say, but unfortunately I was wrong. When you have clergy who think nothing in engaging in hypocritical homosexual activity, combined with secrecy, repression, and a position of authority over young pubescent or adolescent boys, you see ephebophile abuse occurring. I would believe that there is a need now to seriously consider allowing some clergy to marry, which has only ever been an ecclesiastical disciplinary injunction and not a point of doctrine. It is also apparent that there needs to be a purge of those who scandalize the Church with their behaviour. The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s have somehow convinced a significant number of clergy, even in the Vatican itself, that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic priest, which it most certainly is not.

The Church is going to see mass apostasy in Europe and America if this situation continues - for who wants to listen to a sermon from people who take no heed of the Church's teachings themselves. The O'Brien affair has convinced me that there needs to be an urgent purging of clergy (and I don't just mean homosexual clergy), but also that the abuse of the reform process brought about after the Second Vatican Council has been an unmitigated disaster.

In relation to the alleged homosexuality of Pope Paul VI and Benedict XVI, there is virtually nothing but gossip and hearsay to back up the former, while the latter, if he was born with a gay inclination at all, has never been alleged to have acted on it in any way (if it is true at all, which it might well not be). I don't believe it fair to insinuate about them on the basis of mere opinion and gossip. More to the point, I actually now see that Benedict himself had realised the scale of the problem and that was why he went about trying to purge this subculture by preventing apparently gay seminarians from entering the priesthood (which I had thought unfair, but now, seeing the scale of the problem he was confronted with, can understand).

This is not a post about or against gay people or saying gay people have a tendency towards ephebophilia, not in the least. It is specifically about the warped sexuality and psychosexual immaturity of those gay clerics who abuse their position because of a mixture of repression, power, and secrecy, combined with the new liberalism and relativism that has become apparent among clergy since the 1960s.

I think that married clergy is now a necessity.
 


commonman

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
5,360
i am also beginning to think that it will fall to women to restore the church's reputation, by which i do not mean women priests, but rather a much more prominent leading role for women. Quite simply, men are proving just incapable of the job.
where i live that is what is going on women are doing all the back ground work within the church
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,676
The scales are beginning to fall from my eyes on the level of homosexuality among Catholic clergy. I always knew that a significant minority were of a gay inclination, if chastely, and that a small minority were sexually active homosexuals. However, it is becoming apparent that, particularly since the 1960s and 1970s, a homosexual subculture has appeared in many seminaries, by which I mean openly and actively homosexual, calling each other by girls' names, and so on. It appears that the St. Andrews seminary in Scotland that Cardinal O'Brien once ran had such a culture, and others like it. I am beginning to comprehend the scale of the problem, the infiltration of the Church by a homosexual subculture which is both hypocritical (many of them are the loudest in condemning gay marriage and the like) and extremely damaging to the moral authority of the Church. It is nothing short of a disgrace.

It has also become apparent that a significant number of clergy are so liberal and relativist in their approach to Catholic teaching, and so many among them practicing homosexuals, including in high places, that there is a need now to act to counter this sect. While not blaming child-abuse on homosexuality, which would be absurd, it is apparent that the specifically ephebophile abuse (the majority of abuse cases) is in part down to those who for some reason believe that there is no hypocrisy in being a Catholic priest or higher and preaching against homosexual activity while indulging it in themselves. I didn't used to believe there was any link at all, believing it a silly and unfair thing to say, but unfortunately I was wrong. When you have clergy who think nothing in engaging in hypocritical homosexual activity, combined with secrecy, repression, and a position of authority over young pubescent or adolescent boys, you see ephebophile abuse occurring. I would believe that there is a need now to seriously consider allowing some clergy to marry, which has only ever been an ecclesiastical disciplinary injunction and not a point of doctrine. It is also apparent that there needs to be a purge of those who scandalize the Church with their behaviour. The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s have somehow convinced a significant number of clergy, even in the Vatican itself, that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic priest, which it most certainly is not.

The Church is going to see mass apostasy in Europe and America if this situation continues - for who wants to listen to a sermon from people who take no heed of the Church's teachings themselves. The O'Brien affair has convinced me that there needs to be an urgent purging of clergy (and I don't just mean homosexual clergy), but also that the abuse of the reform process brought about after the Second Vatican Council has been an unmitigated disaster.

In relation to the alleged homosexuality of Pope Paul VI and Benedict XVI, there is virtually nothing but gossip and hearsay to back up the former, while the latter, if he was born with a gay inclination at all, has never been alleged to have acted on it in any way (if it is true at all, which it might well not be). I don't believe it fair to insinuate about them on the basis of mere opinion and gossip. More to the point, I actually now see that Benedict himself had realised the scale of the problem and that was why he went about trying to purge this subculture by preventing apparently gay seminarians from entering the priesthood (which I had thought unfair, but now, seeing the scale of the problem he was confronted with, can understand).

This is not a post about or against gay people or saying gay people have a tendency towards ephebophilia, not in the least. It is specifically about the warped sexuality and psychosexual immaturity of those gay clerics who abuse their position because of a mixture of repression, power, and secrecy, combined with the new liberalism and relativism that has become apparent among clergy since the 1960s.

I think that married clergy is now a necessity.
Good post - but wouldn't allowing the clergy to marry damage the authority of the Papacy after all the previous pronouncements?
 

commonman

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
5,360
Good post - but wouldn't allowing the clergy to marry damage the authority of the Papacy after all the previous pronouncements?
clergy marry in other religions and there seems to be no problem
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,565
Website
en.wikipedia.org
Doesnt Cato have a view on this from his time in the seminary(think he said he was in one at one point)? I thought he mentioned there was a lot of homosexual men there.

I agree with the idea of a married clergy, it seems like the throwing away of gods gift of life to reject children, and from a biological perspective you have very clever people ending thier genetic germ line. I dont think this could be in service to god, often the smartest end up being priests in families.

I think specfic orders could be celibate as I accept the argument that married life could be a distraction to true devotion to god.
 
Last edited:

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,676
clergy marry in other religions and there seems to be no problem
But other religions weren't performing a massive u turn.

If clerical marriage is allowed then how long before contraception rules are changed or female ordination?

(mind you married clergy have been allowed to transfer from the Anglicans and I know of at least one widower who was ordained)
 

linny55

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
4,491
One paedo in a College/seminary could cause an awful lot of damage to young immature men leaving them to continue a lifestyle they might not have followed had they not enrolled in said schools.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,085
Good post - but wouldn't allowing the clergy to marry damage the authority of the Papacy after all the previous pronouncements?
No, at least not in any doctrinal sense. It has only ever been a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, of expediency too. There is nothing wrong with celibacy or chastity in themselves - it is practised by Hindus and Buddhists as a means of spiritual enlightenment, purging the base instincts and achieving transcendence (and no-one says a word about it). It is, however, a problem insofar as I am now seeing that there is a much larger tendency than I had realised for homosexuals to use the priesthood as a means of avoiding awkward questions (perhaps lessening in the USA and Europe now that it isn't such a big deal to be gay any more, but potentially a huge problem in Africa and Latin America), and heterosexual seminarians have found themselves either attracted away by the wish to not be alone, or else have actually been more or less frozen out by the homosexual subculture which apparently infested seminaries in the last four or five decades.

There have been married clergy before, and no-one believes the Papacies which allowed it were undermined in authority by the subsequent ban. Plus there are ex-Anglican clerics who have crossed over to Catholicism and have been allowed to take Holy Orders while being married.

I think the crisis in the moral authority of the Church now requires a radical rethinking of the ban, plus a need to put women front and centre much more (again, as I said, not as clergy, but rather perhaps as enforcers, proponents, kind of as a Church watchdog from within - we men are just always mucking up too much), together with a purge of the subcultures (including heterosexual hypocrites, relativism, liberalism, and so on) and a rejection of the abuses of the reforms ushered in by Vatican II.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
Good post - but wouldn't allowing the clergy to marry damage the authority of the Papacy after all the previous pronouncements?
It is religion- the right formulation of words can square most circles.
 

commonman

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
5,360
Is it just the catholic church that stops marriage ,but if allowed would that stop the problem in the church.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,220
No, at least not in any doctrinal sense. It has only ever been a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, of expediency too. There is nothing wrong with celibacy or chastity in themselves - it is practised by Hindus and Buddhists as a means of spiritual enlightenment, purging the base instincts and achieving transcendence (and no-one says a word about it). It is, however, a problem insofar as I am now seeing that there is a much larger tendency than I had realised for homosexuals to use the priesthood as a means of avoiding awkward questions (perhaps lessening in the USA and Europe now that it isn't such a big deal to be gay any more, but potentially a huge problem in Africa and Latin America), and heterosexual seminarians have found themselves either attracted away by the wish to not be alone, or else have actually been more or less frozen out by the homosexual subculture which apparently infested seminaries in the last four or five decades.

There have been married clergy before, and no-one believes the Papacies which allowed it were undermined in authority by the subsequent ban. Plus there are ex-Anglican clerics who have crossed over to Catholicism and have been allowed to take Holy Orders while being married.

I think the crisis in the moral authority of the Church now requires a radical rethinking of the ban, plus a need to put women front and centre much more (again, as I said, not as clergy, but rather perhaps as enforcers, proponents, kind of as a Church watchdog from within - we men are just always mucking up too much), together with a purge of the subcultures (including heterosexual hypocrites, relativism, liberalism, and so on) and a rejection of the abuses of the reforms ushered in by Vatican II.
What is the ban on women priests based on?
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
Anyway, great post TA. My own view is that a move to married priests would massively revitalize the Church.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,676
No, at least not in any doctrinal sense. It has only ever been a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, of expediency too. There is nothing wrong with celibacy or chastity in themselves - it is practised by Hindus and Buddhists as a means of spiritual enlightenment, purging the base instincts and achieving transcendence (and no-one says a word about it). It is, however, a problem insofar as I am now seeing that there is a much larger tendency than I had realised for homosexuals to use the priesthood as a means of avoiding awkward questions (perhaps lessening in the USA and Europe now that it isn't such a big deal to be gay any more, but potentially a huge problem in Africa and Latin America), and heterosexual seminarians have found themselves either attracted away by the wish to not be alone, or else have actually been more or less frozen out by the homosexual subculture which apparently infested seminaries in the last four or five decades.

There have been married clergy before, and no-one believes the Papacies which allowed it were undermined in authority by the subsequent ban. Plus there are ex-Anglican clerics who have crossed over to Catholicism and have been allowed to take Holy Orders while being married.

I think the crisis in the moral authority of the Church now requires a radical rethinking of the ban, plus a need to put women front and centre much more (again, as I said, not as clergy, but rather perhaps as enforcers, proponents, kind of as a Church watchdog from within - we men are just always mucking up too much), together with a purge of the subcultures (including heterosexual hypocrites, relativism, liberalism, and so on) and a rejection of the abuses of the reforms ushered in by Vatican II.
I think allowing the clergy to marry would be a huge step in the right direction - but I don't have any problem with gay people being ordained. And I think a lot of the problems have come about because the reforms that should have followed Vatican II were curtailed.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,085
Is it just the catholic church that stops marriage ,but if allowed would that stop the problem in the church.
Buddhism and Hinduism see chastity and celibacy as the ideal, a necessary means of achieving nirvana, a state of transcendence where bodily urges (including for gluttony and for material comfort) ground consciousness too much in the physical to be able to become as close as possible to the divine (or to inner contentment, for non-theistic Buddhists). The Catholic Church does not see the physical in the same negative light, though it obviously teaches mastery of it - the Catholic Church, which obviously believes in the Incarnation, as well as man being made in the Image of God, and in bodily resurrection, embraces the physical world much more, but nonetheless would subscribe to the idea of celibacy and chastity as a calling, a vocation, for those who are willing and able to make such vows.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,619
It makes the atheist's work so much easier when religion tears itself apart.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top