ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

September 23, 2005

What is gay?

Vatican weighs ban on gay priests, regardless of whether they act on their sexuality.

What I don't get is how they will know who is gay if they aren't actually having sex with members of their own gender. If they're celibate, what makes them gay? I imagine gay men who choose the priesthood, whether to supress their own desires or not, will likely not be the stereotypical Cher-listening, chaps-wearing Chelsea boy. So how will they weed out the gays?

Posted by Karol at September 23, 2005 11:11 AM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Duh. They'll look for lisps, limp wrists and over-use of the word "fabulous." That's how I weed out the gays in my life.

Posted by: Jill at September 23, 2005 11:52 AM

Banning gays will not solve the problem.

Because there are so few people in the world who want to remain celibate, the Church is forced to accept people with myriad of personal problems (like pedophilia).

Allowing priests to marry is the only solution that would increase their pool of applicants and enable them to pick high quality priests.

Posted by: Jake at September 23, 2005 12:45 PM

I see your point K, but the same could go for celibate straight people. Are they really heterosexual if they're not having sex with anyone? Does celibacy make one asexual?

But yeah... if priests aren't acting on it, they're gonna have a tough time sniffing them out. I wonder if this may turn into a modern day witch hunt.

Posted by: Chad at September 23, 2005 12:56 PM

Two words: Liberace records.

Posted by: Humphrey at September 23, 2005 01:51 PM

Well they could ask them, for starters.

I'm sure there are gay (as in they have a same-sex attraction that they don't act on) priests who'd answer honestly.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at September 23, 2005 02:26 PM

I heard about this on the radio the other day. They are actually going from seminary to seminary interviewing not only the priests themselves but others in regard to their behavior. A bit ludicrous if you ask me. To the point about celebate vs. not - there are married priests in the Catholic church, priests who have converted - quite interesting cases. I think where as before priests had families or lovers, now it's too monitored and out in the open. I think if the Catholic Church is to thrive and survive it will have to allow priests to marry. However not being a Catholic i don't know how that strikes the faithful, so i guess my opinion should be taking as practical rather than a matter of faith.

Posted by: Petitedov at September 23, 2005 02:38 PM

I'm not so sure. Is the move for married priests strong south of the border, down Mexico way (to quote El Bingo, my main man, my dawg, my ace in the hole-Bing Crosby) ? Or in Africa ? Or in the Phillipines ? I think we of the West have to be very careful when it comes to thinking about reforming a worldwide church. I think more than a few Anglicans who endorsed the blasphemy of Spong and the endorsement of sodomy in New Hampshire were stunned by the response of the Anglican church in third world countries. The progressives found that Africa did not meet its politically correct notions.

Posted by: Von Bek at September 23, 2005 03:54 PM

Dunking stools worked the last time.

Posted by: ugarte at September 23, 2005 04:18 PM

It is part of Catholisim for priests to be celibate. The reason is so they can focus on God, and not worry about having to provide for a family/spouse. These guys are supposed to be searching for God 24/7. Constantly in prayer, fasting, being spiritual. It wouldn't be fair for a family or a spouse to never have their father/husband there. So the church made sure that problem wouldn't come up. End of story. Oh, and the Bible also says some things about homosexuals as well. It's the part about Sodem and Gamora (cant spell Biblical cities, sorry) So in banning gay priests, maybe they are doing something the Christian religion says to do? *gasp* go figure.

Posted by: Mallory at September 23, 2005 04:21 PM

Easy, the pedophiles are all gay

Posted by: toby at September 23, 2005 05:10 PM

Mallory:

You give the current reason for not allowing priests to marry.

However, priests were allowed to marry for many centuries. The Church banned marriage for a secular reason: priest's families were too expensive for the Church to support.

Thus it is not a foundation belief of the Church and can be changed at any time.

Now is the time to change.

Posted by: Jake at September 23, 2005 06:16 PM

Attention Seminarians, Tonight We Will Be Holding a Barbra Streisand Listening Party in the Main Auditorium! Feel Free To Sing Along! (And don't forget to bring a friend).

Mallory, all of the stuff regarding the beating and punishing of gay folk in the Bible is in the Old Testament. Christianity is supposed to have its primary focus on the New Testament--not that I think for a second that the real Jesus would be kosher with homosexuality, he being a product of his times, religion and all. (Although St. Paul was reportedly more than okay with it... if you get my drift).

Posted by: ken at September 23, 2005 07:25 PM

Although a majority of priest-molestations were of boys there were girls exploited as well. Lets not turn the discussion of gay = pevert. I have to agree with Jake on the marriage om marriage being banned on account of Churches fear that not only could they not support the family but that the priests themselves would take the Churches money and take into their families instead of keeping in the Church.

Posted by: Petitedov at September 23, 2005 09:46 PM

Liberace records? Are people that dumb?

If you want to spot a gay male - check for a Britney Spears album.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at September 24, 2005 12:46 AM

In all seriousness though - I have read that they show pictures of men and women and check to see if the pupils dilate.

Pupils dilate when you are attracted to someone.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at September 24, 2005 12:55 AM

Also - someone needs to educate Karol that Chelsea boys do not wear Chaps.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at September 24, 2005 02:10 PM

Oh yes they do. With no jeans underneath, either.

Posted by: Karol at September 24, 2005 02:56 PM

Karol - Shame on you. You really should be more up to date on your gay culture.

Go ask Toby what a Chelsea Boy is.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at September 24, 2005 04:20 PM

I hate to tell you how recently I saw a bare man ass sticking out of leather chaps.

Posted by: Karol at September 24, 2005 05:03 PM

I believe that the issues is not about a few homosexual priests, chaste or otherwise.
While I have no first hand experience, I have read accounts of seminaries becomeing dating clubs for homosexual priests and that sexual nepotism is becoming a serious problem.
The AIDS rate among priests is rather high, suggesting that the homosexuals are not chaste.

I would also like to note that many of that cases of "pedophilia" were in fact pederasty or Ephebophilia. Homosexual priests turned from consoling confused teenagers into initiating intercorse with them.
This was a mere extension of the practice of older Priests and higher officials taking monks or seminary students under their wings (or covers.)


Look up the "gay mafia" or "lavender mafia"
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/dossier.jsp?did=dossier-lavender-mafia

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=597&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/
http://www.cruxnews.com/NORNotes/nor-22oct03.html
http://www.dads.org/article.asp?artId=315
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/religion/2002007.shtml

Homosexual relations are corrupting the church and
need to be stopped just as illicit heterosexuals relationships must be.

Posted by: Ron Lewenberg at September 24, 2005 05:25 PM

Karol - You are mixing up the leather scene with Chelsea guys.

They are poles apart (pun intended).

Like I said - Go ask Toby what a Chelsea guy is.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at September 24, 2005 11:25 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?