Rorate Caeli

Manila Archbishop: It's "not too bad" to have priests with homosexual inclinations


(Picture taken from the website of the Archdiocese of Manila)
Cardinal Rosales says gay priests OK but...

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:57:00 05/20/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The Manila Archbishop Monday said that having homosexual Catholic priests wouldn’t be “too bad” as long as they didn’t “act out” their “tendencies.”

In an interview on Church-run Radio Veritas, Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales acknowledged that gay men had been accepted into the priesthood because “even if [the priest] has [homosexual] inclinations, it does not immediately mean that he is evil.”

Distinction

The cardinal noted that such priests had chosen “to make a distinction between inclination and acting out.”

“A homosexual inclination is not bad but acting it out is an entirely different matter, and that is what is written in the sacred scriptures,” he added.

Rosales explained that this had been the stand of Pope Benedict XVI who, he said, was “not condemning homosexuals” per se when he confronted the issue of pedophile priests during his recent visit to the United States.

He noted that when Benedict declared in New York that “the Church needs holy priests, not many priests,” the latter was speaking out particularly against men of the cloth who had sexually abused children and brought shame to the Church.

Fact-finding body

In this country, Rosales said, complaints against priests who commit sexual abuse may be raised before bishops. The subject priest would be made to answer the allegations before a fact-finding body.

If found meritorious, the case would be elevated to the Vatican, where it would be decided whether the priest should be defrocked, Rosales said. Jeanette I. Andrade

Given that Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales is the acknowledged spiritual leader of the third largest Catholic country in the world (with some 6,000+ seminarians), head of one of the world's largest cardinalatial sees (Manila, which is also a hub for seminarians from all over Asia and Africa) and one of the most eminent prelates of Asia, his interpretation of the recent Vatican instructions regarding homosexual seminarians and priests is bound to have massive influence.

While the Cardinal's stance against priests who commit sexual abuse is laudable, his interpretation of the Holy See's directives against homosexuals in the priesthood is gravely mistaken, to say the least.


"In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

Incidentally, the Philippine Daily Inquirer is by no means an "anticlerical" paper, and has a history of strongly supporting the more "socially-oriented" sectors of the Catholic Church as well as Cardinal Rosales.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

This what is called ''Don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

This policy was specifically rejected by the new Roman protolcol, which explicitly bars homosexuals from the priesthood.

In many cases, there is a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many gays have apparently been trying to infiltrate the priesthood, thus the Roman directive.

I think this an example of appaling double speak from liberal bishops : 1) who would barely tolerate the TLM 2) but who would greatly tolerate the grave seditions of homosexuals.

We ought to listen to Saint Paul who clearly denounces the crimes of the pederasts.

DM08 said...

there are many good chaste and orthodox priests with gay-inclinations, and I don't see why they should all be made a target because of the philandering of a few unscrupulous homosexuals in the clergy.

Question said...

Does anyone on this site know if Archbishop Lefebvre ever commented on homosexual priests and religious, or on homosexuality in general? In my research of his writings I have yet to find anything.

Anonymous said...

I agree but just one problem. Many leading traditionists are many who support the Old Mass have homosexual inclinations. I mean both priests and laity. Some like dress ups and beautiful things while having a double life hidden away. The duplicity takes the form of friendships, cliques, and even other things. While believing it wrong in the intellect the body is elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Paedophiles are paedophiles.

Homosexuals are homosexuals.

Don't confuse the two, they are different things, though it is clear there are many who simply do not understand the distinction.

Also, ordination of homosexuals seems to be one of those issues which people take up with great fervour without recourse to pastoral responsiblity. The document produced by the Holy See is sufficiently ambiguous to take signifcant account of the latter, being as it seems to lack a definition of what a 'homosexual tendency' actually is. I'm sure many would describe the many gay priests and seminarians that there are would not describe them as haveing 'homosexual tendencies' and certainly do not support 'gay culture'.

I fear the peity of some Christians is verging on a mild obsession regarding this issue.

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree. I think many problems are caused by two things. 1/ Society's interst in sex...it uses it to sell things and make money. It encourages this without limit and then gets upset when instinct becomes peverted and out of hand. So we are all a bit obsessed by it or the lack of it. 2/On the other hand all of this is brought inside the Church and again as we let society dictate norms, it has permeated the Church. Like abortion, divorce and remarriage, contraception, abuses in worship, and doctrinal diseent it is all about letting the world set the agenda. Well it is time to fight the rot. Within ourselves and outside.
No priests who support practising homosexuality. None who saliva at the thought of homosexual acts.

JSarto said...

Homosexuality is the sin against nature, that claims revenge from Heaven! Homosexual inclination, although different from the pratice of homosexual acts, is in itself morally wrong. No catholic can forget these truths!

About the argumentation of His Eminence, it is a pity that he hasn't learned anything with the scandals of the last decades, insisting in the same kind of speech that led to such scandals. Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles wouldn't say better... Unfortunately. modernist and progressist tendencies still rampant inside the Church, despite the effort of Pope Benedict XVI to fight them.

Anonymous said...

You are flogging a dead horse. The Archbishop's "interpretation" of the muddled Vatican document is the same as that given by the US Bishops, the UK bishops and the heads of several religious orders, nor did the Vatican come back at them to correct or reject their interpretation.

LeonG said...

"Paedophiles are paedophiles.

Homosexuals are homosexuals."

This is not an entirely valid view. There is abundant statistical evidence to demonstrate that sodomites are responsible for a disproportionately high number of paedophile cases. In USA & Canada, for example, studies show that about 2.5% of the population which homosexuals represent are responsible for between 30-40% of the cases of paedophilia. Therefore, the distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia & their unfortunate practitioners, is not always as clear as one might believe.

In any case, there is a significant body of bishops and priests who will continue to disobey papal directives while continuing to do everything they can to block the traditional liturgy.

Steve Right said...

I agree with the good bishop. What's the big deal? We all have our tendencies to sin. Men with homosexual tendencies are no different to men with heterosexual tendencies or men with tendencies to commit impure acts alone. They're all celibate. They're all keeping their sexual faculties in check. No difference. It's unfair to discriminate. I'm sure in the Church's 2,000 year history there have been scores of priests with this tendency and many more.

Anonymous said...

what's the difference between priests attracted to men and priests attracted to women?. What matters is that they observe and respect their vows of chastity. A priest abusing my daughter (or my wife) is better than another abusing my son?. Honesty and chastity,otherwise they are better to go out of the church.

Anonymous said...

This is of course a disgrace and the Archbishop of Manila should be deposed. How can a man say that he loves the Blessed Virgin and reject what she essentially is. Her lovliness resides in her being a woman Moreover, since there is no Jesus without Mary, then how can he say he truly loves Jesus? And if he does not love Jesus, how can he be a priest?
To believe that persons may have homosexual inclinations and practice the Christian life as long as they do not act them out is wrong. Would one say that it is alright to hate people as long as one does not kill them? How many acts short of murder are compatible with hatred? One may then ask how many acts are compatible with homosexual inclinations short of fellatio or anal intercourse? There are quite a few. All of them are sinful. So is the Archbishop saying that all these acts are compatible with a priestly life?
A priest must be whole, accepting of human sexuality as it was created by God. Our sexuality has a deep symbolic meaning. After all, God has allowed human kind some portion in His work as Creator. This is a sacred function. When for reasons of the eschaton, a man is called to holy virginity, then he must be aware that it is this high sacred function that he is opting out of because he is called to another in view of the Last Things. The Mass is a rite for the end of time that looks forward to our Lord's immediate coming. And only in view of this can one forego marriage as a Christian.
The early Church lived in earnest expectation of the Lord's imminent return. And there was no need for marriage in the eyes of many because they thought they would see that return before they died. When this did not happen in the way it was anticipated, the Church allowed the vocation of waiting in a celibate state to continue as a special charism and as a sign of the Church's belief in Christ's return.
Finally, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible except in a negative way. It has no part in the economy of salvation. In the Old Testament it is associated with sympathetic magic and idolatry. And so it remains today. Those with the inclination towards homosexuality have an inclination towards idolatry. They have made their homosexual desires a partner with God. To say that these desires or inclinations are okay, therefore is a grievous error.

a Priest said...

I am a priest and I offer the Extraordinary Form when I am able and I can honestly tell you that the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is the predominant policy and this will not change. No seminary would be able to carte blanche ban candidates with homosexual inclinations.

Any seminarian who is asked if he has such inclinations, whether in an psychological exam or by a formator, would of course say that he is "straight". Remember also that many of the young men in a seminary are just that, young men. They only gradually come to an awareness of their sexual situation with its strengths and weaknesses, and by the time they are settled with themselves, they are either close to ordination or ordained; at that point they would not simply up and leave the seminary or priesthood.

Of course church teaching and policy will be reiterated by the Holy See in a strong and unambiguous way, this is a strength of this papacy and also the previous one because the secular world is constantly looking for "kinks in the armor". However, do not expect seminaries or dioceses to change their way of doing things. It simply will not happen.

What the Filipino Cardinal said has been said or implied by many an orthodox priest and prelate in the Church.

Anonymous said...

"there are many good chaste and orthodox priests with gay-inclinations, and I don't see why they should all be made a target because of the philandering of a few unscrupulous homosexuals in the clergy"

I posted this piece from a contributor.
There should be NO room in the Roman Catholic priesthood for gays OF ANY KIND, active, non=active, semi-active, retired, or WHATEVER.

The attitude of this Cardinal Archbishop (who by the way- should have worn braces on his front teeth as a child), is a radical liberal who had persecuted the traditionalist Catholic community in the Phillipines for years, and is 100% against the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Yet, as with most radical liberal Bishops, he looks the other way at the perversity of priests who are active homosexualls, or those that just have "inclinations".
Listen everyone, the Roman Catholic priesthood is a full 50%the most debauched, corrupt, decadent ,sinful, and immoral group of people in the world..... but only since Vatican II. So is the army of dissident radical femminist habitless nuns in their late 60's and 70's....many of them are probably lesbians. They have collectively created a network which has destroyed the faith of millions in 40 years.
We have a Pope who has done nothing to address and correct the problem. He chooses to reward this kind of behavior with love and gentle words, rather than what is needed.....hardline rulings against these people to literally "clean house".
UNtil that happens, and we are rid of people like Cardinal Rosales (who is past resignation time but Benedict XVI has kept him on)....the Church will suffer the same disease it has for the last 40 years.

Anonymous said...

That's ridiculous to label traditionalist priests etc. as probably homosexuals because they like to "dress up" and love beautiful ornamentation on the altar.
I was in the seminary, and it was the macho, radical liberal dissidents in seminary who liked the Vatican II stripped down bare bones ad-lib Protestant style Masses who later on turned out to be the radical pro-gay or actively homosexuals. Not the traditionalists.
It was the guys who hit the weight room in the seminary basement every night after Evening prayers, the ones who had the touch-football games on Saturday afternoons, the ones who actively ridiculed Catholic tradition in class and at Mass who twenty years later were accused of peodophilia etc.!

Anonymous said...

The Vatican document makes a distinction between those with "deep seated" tendencies and "transitory" tendencies. Without defining either, the first are supposed to be banned from seminary. Those with transitory tendencies can be admitted after they have been "overcome" for three years. What does this mean? Does it mean they have to have a normal and healthy attraction to girls with no attraction to other men for a period of three years? Or does it mean they have to have practiced "chastity of the heart" as one priest said and worked with a Catholic psychologist for three years. Whether they are still attracted to men is irrelevant if the second intrepretation is correct. The document defines none of these things, which makes it easy to ignore and manipulate.

Anonymous said...

BELLA DODD’S CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY

Bella Dodd, a former high-ranking Communist & NYC teacher, (later re-converted to the Catholic Faith by Archbishop Fulton Sheen), told how as an agent she encouraged more than a thousand Communists or fellow travelers to enter Catholic seminaries in the 1930s. Dodd testified: ‘In the 1930s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within,’ and the chief tactic devised, once these men came to power, was to label the Church ‘of the past’ as oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant and closed to the world.”
Other research shows that many of these liturgical experts do not believe in the Catholic Faith and do not believe in the Real Presence. They do, however, believe in the deconstruction of the Latin Liturgy. Their sympathies lie with Marxists, radical feminists, pro-homosexualists and New Agers. These things seem difficult to credit, yet Mr Likoudis of The Wanderer states:

“The nurturing of the homosexual network in the Catholic Church in modern times, which parallels similar networks in governments, business and educational circles, may, some suggest, date back to the late 1920s and early 30s when the ‘Cambridge Apostles’ that elite clique of homosexual Marxists under the direction of Anthony Blunt (and including such notorious spies as Kim Philby), determined to seize control of the major institutions, especially the churches, newspapers, cinema and radio (and, later, television), universities, museums and governmental cultural agencies
.
Above excerpts taken from a review in “Catholic” on Paul Likoudis’ book "Amchurch Comes Out"

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter said,
There is a chasm of difference betwixt homosexual tendencies and heterosexual tendencies.
The former is unnatural and the latter is natural.

All priests must have heterosexual tendencies, not merely because they would not molest little boys and girls, but also because the homosexual mind is warped and is not in a position to teach the truth clearly.
Homosexual men can lead celibate lives, but they still can be effeminate, petty and overly sarcastic to a fault.
There is no place for men like this in the priesthood if they are to lead souls to salvation.

And of course hetero priests must be celibate, obviously.
They tend to be ordered correctly since their sexuality is natural.

Ut Prosim.

Anonymous said...

CONTROVERSIES OVER CONDUCT OF CATHOLIC MASS REMAIN

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19725

Anonymous said...

Steve Right: "It's unfair to discriminate." [against homosexuals]

This is the problem at its roots. Even the New Catechism of the Catholic Church has singled out a particular degrading vice, and elevated it to protective status:

"Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Nothing pre-Vatican II has ever pampered an intrinsic moral disorder like this. This pampering of sinners with inclinations to commit acts of sodomy, and thus crying to high heaven for vengeance, comes from the very top.

Where else in the Catechism is there such solicitude for other types of moral depravities?

There is no place in the priesthood for homosexuals. It is an outrage against the sublime, eternal,
masculine, priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

I never ask, but always assume that the Priest is homosexual and a Buggere. This is the safest approach for any parent of a Catholic Child (or any other family member for that matter).

Sorry. It is just a fact, and fair to assume.

Anonymous said...

I feel that it is ALWAYS FAIR TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS! ALWAYS!

It is not fair to treat them poorly, but I will always discriminate against them.

What is Discrimination?

Wickep Def:

In general, discrimination is the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things. We all have the power of discrimination, which is essential for us to be able to make decisions and judgements about things. This article focuses on unfair discrimination amongst people — that is, the prejudicial treatment of different groups of people based on certain characteristics.

With this in mind I must keep my children and family away from their type of filth. I will shunn then when I am able, but I will also pray for them.

They offend me and my lifestyle. They are a direct affront to my Family.

Ione said...

While there is still a disproportionately high number of homosexuals in the clerical state their numbers are declining, at least in the religious order whom I have first hand knowledge of.

The scandals have really made the priesthood no longer a safe escapist gay world it used to be portrayed as. The 1970s were horrid times for the priesthood, and many gay priests betrayed their vows and the Church to the most wretched extents. It may be hard to see now but these scandals may become a blessing of purification our priests have needed for more years than I care to recount.

But having been involved with the religious formation for twenty-plus years I can say that homosexual candidates are still applying in the same amount of numbers as the early eighties, but the difference is that they no longer last very long, and few are ordained.

I think Fr. Donald Cozzens' book gave people a false impression, the priesthood is no longer "gaying" if anything it's "straightening" or "ethnicizing."

The homosexual priests though lower in numbers now still attract the undesired attention from the secular world because of either their outspokenness or imprudent lifestyles.

I agree that it is not always clear-cut when a young man enters what his sexuality is, because often he is not fully aware himself. One good development in this regard is that men enter later now and have had time to become more fully aware of the entirety of their person.

I would have to disagree with the individual who argues that traditional priests have as many gays as novus ordo communities. The average gay priest is usually more liberal and openly hostile to all things traditional. In all my years in religious formation work I have encountered a couple "conservative" gay novices, but not once have I met a "traditionalist" gay candidate.

saint rafael said...

It has never been the tradition of the Church to allow men with a homosexual inclination to become a priest. They have always been banned. Even Pope Paul VI upheld the ban.

While a Homosexual inclination is not sinful, it is disordered. The Church has never allowed men with grave disorders in, wehether it be homosexuality or narcolepsy.

Jesus was a perfect man, so the Alter Christus must be a normal healthy hetereo-sexual man.

Anonymous said...

The fault here lies not with Cardinal Rosales but with Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect for Catholic Education; Archbishop Miller, his former Secretary; and, ultimately, Pope Benedict XVI.

The problem is the distinction which the Pope's statement fails to make between "deep-seated" and 'shallow-seated' tendencies (not to mention that 'seated' was an unfortunate turn of translation). Who decides this distinction and based on what criteria? The document refers to sexual inversion which is only the result of immaturity, a category which is questionable to begin with.

The rule should--nay, must--be that nobody who has ANY inclination to sexaul inversion is a fit candidate for the seminary or the priesthood. Since the priesthood is not a right, it is perfectly approprite for the Church to use psychological and even polygraph testing to weed out inappropriate candidates, even though this would also exclude some candidates who are not inverted. Again, admission is not a right.

Given how serious the situation is now, nothing less then a thoroughgoing purge will reverse it. They are afraid to do this because they already have a shortage of priests. But it would be unfair to target those who are already ordained because the Church has already approved them for a time. So I'd start with cleaning out the seminaries and removing anyone who has any inverted inclination, however slight.

This problem has been caused by the statement of the Congregation for Catholic Education. And now we are seeing where it is leading. Prelates such as Cardinal Rosales can take this one step further for the simple reason that there is nobody who can tell *him* who counts as having a deep-seated and who a 'shallow-seated' inclination. In law, it is he who decides that distinction (together with seminary rectors).

The 1961 document, however inadequate was better. It simply said that no one who has any such incliation should be admitted. Now they have opened a pandora's box.

The problem is that most of the cases of sexaul abuse are homerastic attacks on adolescent boys and young men. While not everyone having the inclination will attack a boy, removing those having the inclination is the only sure way to reduce the number of attacks. When you have countless cases of rape, you want to remove anyone with even the slightest temptation to rape, no?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Mr. Leong's good points.

The fact is that well over 80% of the pædophile attacks by priest-predators are homerastic: they attack adolescent and young males, not adolescent and young females.

Some bloggers here are buying into the lies from the media, which would have us believe that a homerast is no more likely to attack an adolescent than is a heterast. The facts just don't fit this fantasy-theory.

Someone here argued that many traditionalists, including laics, like 'dress up' and hide these inclinations while condemning them in others. That may very well be, but it's irrelevant. The inclination itself is not held to be sinful but it is sinful to put innocents in situations of risk in regard to it.

Lastly, to have true compassion for sexual inverts, should we be encouraging them to enter an all-male seminary, where they will be tempted every day? What about our love for and charity to them? Does this help them or hurt them?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On this business of transitory tendencies. I can only speak for myself and those whom I know, but I find it hard to believe that there are guys out there who don't know if they are 'straight' or 'bent' by the time they are sixteen or eighteen. Most of us know by the time we're about fourteen, no?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

How many priests had affairs with women in the history of the Church? It was an old problem, not even resolved nowadays.And then, what to do with these eterosexuals with a female lover (and children)? Homosexuals no, and eterosexuals with lovers yes?

Anonymous said...

the problem of paedohilia is an old one in the Church...the high proportion of priests pursuing a sexualy deiviant lifestyle in the Curch is regrettably new.

Anonymous said...

What the archbishop doesn't get is that the Church essentially already tried the stance he's articulating. Putting the issue of pedophilia aside, the Church is still having problems with gay bishops and priests who have relationships with one another and with seminarians. Gay seminarians and priests are not foreign to the Church and among inner circles many seminarians and priests were openly gay. Things like this were never made public, but homosexual behavior and culture would flourish in seminaries.

It's not good enough to say that it's OK for seminaries to accept gay men as long as they don't act out. Seminaries would have never officially admitted that they were admitting scores of homosexuals throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's. What would the difference now be if seminaries content themselves with saying that they are accepting men with homosexual tendencies but are making sure they don't 'act out'.

This idea is barely tenable in theory. In practice, it's laughable.

Soli Deo Gloria said...

Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad: Thank you for posting this sad piece of news. Would you be so kind as to give me the name of the congregation at the Vatican (and address) so I could personally send them my complaints about this Cardinal?

Anonymous said...

Homosexuals do NOT belong in the priesthood. Period. Yes,I realize this ideal is not being lived out. We have many gay bishops and rectors of seminaries and we have the church in the condition that it is in because of it.

These men cannot conform to Christ; they have an unnatural inclination.

Also a homosexual will not be able to fully preach ALL the truths of the faith--quite simply because he himself lives a lie.

The statement that 'they are all chaste' is not a fact. Some might be celibate but if one categorizes himself according to how he would prefer to have unnatural sex, there is an issue. And chastity is the issue,not necessarily celibacy.

The lavender agenda has done incredible damage and continues to do so.

Anonymous said...

All,

I wouldn't worry too much about Cardinal Rosales and his "massive influence."

Although Cardinal Re has so far rejected his resignation, on August 10, 2007, Rosales turned 75, and submitted his letter as required by canon law.

It's only a matter of time.

Also, he may not be as bad as he seems. I found this:

Cebu Archdiocese echoes Cardinal Rosales’ stand on gays in Santacruzan
printable page

CEBU CITY, May 18, 2008—The Cebu Archdiocese echoed Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales’ stand on gays’ cross-dressing during Santacruzan procession.

In the editorial of its latest weekly publication “Bag-ong Lungsoranon” published on May 17, Cebu Archdiocese said it maintains the position of Cardinal Rosales to exclude gays “so as not to destroy the sanctity of the celebrations by having them portray the different roles of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

Rosales said earlier that gays dressed up as female religious personalities during religious processions are “horrendous” and defeated the genuine intention of the religious actions.

In support of it, the Lungsoranon editorial said the Santacruzan or Flores de Mayo should be spared from being changed into a “theatre show.”

The Lungsoranon also urged gays not to consider themselves that the Church is discriminating against them, rather understand that the Church’s pastoral care is meant for all regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

The paper also reiterated that the Church’s stand on gays' participation in religious activities, such as Santacruzan, is to keep up the “solemnity of religious activities.”

“Possibly gay’s cross-dressing show can be entertaining to some viewers but we all know that this is not the real purpose of the sacred and solemn activity, ” the Lungsoranon said.

In support of Rosales’ stand, when gays take part in the Santacruzan, people became “tourists” and the procession turns into a “tourist attraction” wherein people jeer at the way gays appear, the President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, told CBCPNews earlier.

He said the Santacruzan has been “commercialized, especially in cities, unlike in the olden times.”

The Santacruzan procession is part of a sacred devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the prelate stressed.

In the rural areas, Catholics pray the Rosary devotedly and prayerfully along the Santacruzan procession that ends at the Church with a Holy Mass.

Some other prelates also echoed the sentiments of Rosales on the issue. (Santosh Digal)


~Belloc

LeonG said...

Another very significant trait in homosexuals is that they tend to organise their lives around their homosexuality. It is obsessive in nature. Moreover, homosexuals desire that we all accept their sexual orientation and so far have gone to inordinate lengths to attempt a complete reorienation of social norms and values to accomodate their lifestyle, like it or not. A new "phobia" has also been conveniently inserted into legal structures to facilitate their political advance.

Once this unnatural inclination is adopted the homosexual is far more prone to other sexually unnatural behaviours. This is why homosexual priests are an extreme liability. To justify their selection on the basis of pretending heterosexual priests have the same temptations is a false comparison and it misses the main point. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder in the first place and encourages further & more deviant unnatural sexual practices. Descriptive and statistical reports demonstrate the dangers.

There are enough perils facing the priesthood today so why introduce another which has already provoked immense scandal upon the church. It is out of control and, frankly speaking, it is still being covered up to a great extent until the secular authorities deal with specific cases. Papal expressions of shame and embarrassment are timely but their are still bishops attempting to conceal the facts.

Richard Fairweather said...

On this business of transitory tendencies. I can only speak for myself and those whom I know, but I find it hard to believe that there are guys out there who don't know if they are 'straight' or 'bent' by the time they are sixteen or eighteen. Most of us know by the time we're about fourteen, no?,

Don't you remember the "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" thing when you were about 11 or 12? There are other things too:

A lot of people have homosexual thoughts in their teenaged years of performing acts with friends usually. I have read this in a number of book of psychology. Even though these thoughts are only fleeting, some act on them while the vast majority do not.

Others remain straight as arrows right through puberty and into early adulthood but then begin to develop homosexual tendencies for a short time. This is often a result of identity crises, confusion, the lessening of sexual excitement that accompanies the departure from puberty.

There are lots of reasons. An open mind and a masculine (unemotional and logical) perusal of academic writing on the subject will enlighten you.

Richard Fairweather