I'm sure some of them do. People can think they are terrible people while continuing to pretend they aren't in public.
In my experience it's quite easy. You quickly get resigned to the fact you're broken and will never be able to change. Once you accept that as truth, it's easier to just ignore it.
> Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite.
I don't understand the psychology either, but people compartmentalize and rationalize. One line of thinking might be that everyone is a fallen sinner, even priests, and so long as they repent and guide their flock in the right direction, they will be forgiven.
It is worth noting I attended Catholic school in the South, closer to the border, so the church reflected more Mexican practices in Catholicism than say one in New York. I've learned from some folks that where you're taught makes a drastic difference.
The only place I was subjected to guilt, shame, and remorse in a negative context was in my home by (Catholic lay) relatives (and mass media). They were in a "cultural Christian" demographic, raised in utterly secular households, and though they practiced the faith vigorously, didn't really believe or follow it at home, except by coincidence.
By contrast, at school I experienced respect and encouragement from women in authority, and church was full of good news, and loving, joyful men and families. Surely my experience is also not in isolation.
When the Catholic abuse scandal broke, I was confused because my priests (and religious sisters) were nothing like that, but abuse by lay volunteers is real too, and it wasn't until 2019 when I put 2 and 2 together in that regard.
So yes, A LOT of unpacking!
The organization itself is still rooted in angry, spanish inquisition style purity tests, and they openly push those views anywhere that isn't too progressive. For example, the same catholic church has pushed misinformation and propaganda all over africa to discourage condom use.
Seminarians do not take vows of celibacy. Seminary is by design a time of testing a vocation. Additionally, I would like to see the data backing your “most gay priests” assertion.
I've known quite a few priests. Most are intelligent and well educated. Its pretty common for them to do a lot of work that probably would translate to secular roles. For example, there's a lot of overlap in managing a parish or diocese and managing a business or division of a corporation.
"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature in need of regeneration and a proclivity to sinful conduct." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Original sin is a deprivation of these positive qualities. Mary, for example, preserved in holiness, not simply cleansed of it. Holiness is our natural state, and so baptism returns us to that preternatural holiness that Adam enjoyed when he walked with God in the Garden.
Anyway, the point is, most American-influenced "logical" people take an implicitly Protestant perspective, that religion is all about consistently following consistent doctrines. The Catholic perspective on this kind of thing is more flexible and quite strange by comparison but tolerating hypocrisy around sexual behavior is definitely not new.
The Catholic perspective is not tolerating hypocrisy, it is a knowledge that we are all sinful and broken. I know what the right thing to do is, and if you ask me I will tell you what the right thing to do is, but often I won't do it. I'm not a hypocrite -- I know I'm wrong, I'm weak and a coward.
(Former Catholic but not a theologian or anything. See discussion here on how canonization is not a declaration of virtue: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm)
Isn't that a contradiction? I thought Protestants were all about grace over works (wasn't it Martin Luther who called James The Epistle of Straw because of it's emphasis on works?). Consistently following consistent doctrines would be works.
If you're convinced that you're not one of the elect, and you've given up, then you've failed to have faith, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Getting faith doesn't guarantee you're one of the elect, but not having it guarantees that you're not.
So an attitude like yours might work anyway, if you happen to be one of the elect, but the odds aren't in your favor.
Its hard to argue the same for gay priests who only occasionally get laid as a result of their choices.
This could be the same reason you so often see things like male sex predators seem overrepresented in e.g. feminist groups. The knee-jerk cynical view is that they're just their to prey on the women, but a more empathetic view might be that they are genuinely trying to atone for their inclining.
But in the end, we all are who we are.
"Well I don't really care that much about actual religion but job is safe and pay is decent..."
Many seminaries only admit gay applicants, Michael Voris does a daily show where he covers this topic over and over and over, and has been doing it for many many years.
“Archdiocese Of Chicago” Approves Gay “Marriage” https://endtimes.video/chicago-cupich-gay-marriage/
“Priest” Announces He’s “Gay” During “Mass,” Receives Standing Ovation https://endtimes.video/gay-priest-during-mass/
Francis Contradicts God And St. Pius V On Homosexuality Laws https://endtimes.video/francis-contradicts-pope-pius-v-homos...
I gotta say, I kinda agree with them on the Latin mass thing. I'm not Catholic (or religious at all, in fact) but the magic and gravitas and historical continuity of the service sounding like something out of Indiana Jones or The Exorcist or what (one imagines) a tenth-century mass would have sounded like, would be one of the bigger draws for me, if I were looking to convert.
[EDIT] OTOH I know at least one formerly-atheist gay guy who decided to pick up religion years and years ago, and definitely, for-sure would have become Catholic (see above about the pomp and circumstance being a big draw)—if not for their stance on homosexuality. IIRC he went Episcopalian instead. Maybe there's a vast untapped reserve of converts there?
On a more serious note. I'm gay and if you want to know why Pride parades, Pride month, and being out is so important, it's this sort of rhetoric. Calls for "biblical morality" and "homosexual crimes" to be punished are coded calls for our destruction. This sort of thinking is always absolutist and apocalyptic. There is nothing I can do to "tone it down" that will make them happy. They simply want us dead. Being out is the only real defense we have because we then go from a demonized other to just your friend, coworker, or family member.
We're here, we're queer - fuck off.
Basically, the way AIDS victims were dehumanized, mistreated, overall publicly humiliated, shattered any real belief that if you just tried to fit in enough society will treat you as one of their own. Ultimately, the LGBTQ community were the only people supporting the LGBTQ community, and this required radical self-acceptance movements in the face of horrific death and apathy.
The church will watch gay people die on the street and spit on their graves like everyone else, and all the speech of forgiveness and compassion was actually a lie. Gay people aren't equal humans in their eyes. Like I said before: the only people supporting queer people were the queer people. The only thing they could do is love themselves, for the world was glad their deaths were painful, slow, and public.
Again with the term "queer", this masks the important distinction mentioned above, because its use presents certain actions as morally-neutral. Many of us view(ed) the AIDS crisis as being used as a justification for sinful actions. I'm sure you're familiar with the Stop the Church event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_Church). It is rather obvious, based on who organized this event and others like it that they were opposed to actual teachings of the Church, such as its condemnation of sodomy, contraception (even as a prophylactic against contracting diseases) and even abortion.
If you grew up in a heavily Catholic area in America, then chances are that you know at least one if not a few people who were resigned to becoming clergy because it was the easiest way for them buy into a system that either repressed their natural sexual urges or gave them an out from society for not having any in the first place.
Catholic Church is not condemning homosexuals. Why it should? According to Bible they were created by God, so they are good by definition. CC is condemning homosexual sex, in the same way as it condemns pre-marriage sex or killing other people. All those acts are done by people created by God, but given a free will to do the things that are wrong from the Church perspective. And that can be forgiven thanks do a deal that Jesus made with God.
As far as priests are concerned it does not matter much if they are gay or not as they should not maintain sexual relationships anyway.
I think most rational people would see through that, it's pretty flimsy.
Where is the inconsistency? A heterosexual man is called to chastity as well. If he acts against this by cheating on his spouse I don't think the CC would be 'condemning an intrinsic quality' he was made with.
The teachings of Jesus should piss everyone off in some way or another.
If someone cheats on their spouse the problem is a betrayal of trust between two people. It's part of a complex web of obligations, urges, and everything else that happens in a relationship.
It's not nearly as simple as someone expressing their sexuality.
But it should be stressed that this is no way a consequence a specific teaching that targets people with same-sex attraction.
The root cause of the trouble is the fact that the Catholic Church has consistently taught something that is always counter-cultural, difficult, and even quite radical. Namely that the only proper place for sexual intimacy is within a life long bond between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children.
The Catholic Church teaches that gay sex is an act of 'grave depravity' and that same-sex attraction is 'intrinsically disordered'. How is that not a specific teaching that targets 'people with same-sex attraction'?
The point is that the identical moral reasoning process is being applied consistently to all people, namely, sexual activity is to be avoided outside of a marriage open to children. Gay people are not being targeted by some sort of religious moral carve-out.
The Church specifically teaches that gay sex is wrong in a way that straight sex isn't, entirely independently of whether it occurs within or outside marriage.
In the case of the article we're commenting on, we have an example of the Church (or a closely associated organisation) specifically treating gay priests differently to straight priests, despite the fact that neither are permitted to have sex with anyone.
It's abundantly clear which group is being targeted here. It's not "people who are having sex with no possibility of having children", or "people who are having sex outside of marriage". It's gay people. And they're being targeted because the Catholic Church teaches very explicitly and specifically that gay sex is wrong.
Only in the past ten years, under Francis' papacy, has rhetoric from the Catholic Church towards homosexuals began to soften. While that's certainly a great thing, that doesn't mean that the views shared by aged bishops, priests and general members of the church have changed as a result of that. We still see signs of that condemnation across the world regularly. They may be changing, but the damage is still present and still happening - it will take a long time for that to disappear, if ever.
>Why it should?
I'd say we should ask every priest, bishop and pope who has criticized homosexuality why they felt they should. I really don't understand why you would ask that rhetorical question when there are centuries of proof of them doing exactly that.
The difference is that these “monitor” groups don’t care about the priests on Tindr because their biases.
Now, imagine doing it for a dogmatic scripture held dearly by many millions. Sure, the Catholic Church is on the wrong side of history when it comes to gay rights, among other things, but if some people find peace and meaning in its voluminous scriptures, then there is still a leadership role for those priests. That might explain the cognitive dissonance.
That you have a few “sins” to struggle doesn’t change your identity or your relationship to it, and besides — everyone has some “sins” they struggle with. As a priest, of all people, you would know that.
As a whole, secular society sees sexual preference as an inflexible identity around which other things like religious affiliation or occupation might pivot. But the converse works just as well for an individual’s view of the world and is of course what many well-established traditions espouse.
Catholicism, in particular, leaves room for living people being imperfect and inescapably bearing “sins” throughout their lives. It’s a core part of the theology. It’s what you do with it that becomes your profession of faith, and committing to the priesthood makes sense as a emphatic way of doing something about yours. (Which suggests that the preisthood can easily collect especially troubled “sinners” seeking to overcome their troubles… who maybe don’t always do a great job of it)
I suspect these gay Catholic find themselves in a similiar situation. They probably do not share much in common with the secular world.
Lots of people will immediately call this hypocrisy but they just have not put that much thought into it. There is more to life than sexual preferences.
Dougal: But Ted, preaching against one thing in public, while secretly doing it in private, that's hypocrisy!
Ted: No Dougal, I don't think so. Hypocrisy is just not something the Catholic church does, if we do something there's usually a good reason for it. Hypocrisy is something more for the common people, and you should strenuously preach against it!
Dougal: Oh OK, thanks for clearing that up Ted.
*My imaginary Father Ted episode, if it was still running.
Hard words but true. No mental gymnastics needed, just a bad conscience.
Now mind you: there are priests who have homosexual desires but try to live their celibacy, albeit not always successfully. These are not hypocritical, they are just human. But they do not tend to visit grindr.
They believe that everyone experiences this kind of struggle, but in different ways depending on the person, and that failing at it is inevitable. They believe there is a way for things to be OK even though you fail.
They also believe in an ethical framework where you determine what is right or wrong based not on your own assessment of the pluses and minuses but by following guidance that comes (through scripture, church tradition, etc.) from a higher power whose wisdom is greater than your own.
And they also believe there's some kind of grand plan behind everything, and that the way they fit into this grand plan is to be a priest. They have at some point come to the conclusion that they are supposed to be one, that it is their vocation.
Or at least, within their faith, these beliefs are what is commonly accepted as the right way to look at it. An individual person may or may not actually think or feel exactly like this. Sort of like how one person may become a doctor because they like helping people and someone else may become a doctor because they don't want to disappoint their family.
So from their perspective, being hetero-celibate and being homo-celibate is an equal sacrifice.
A major cited driver of a lot of the abuse was that exact line of thinking. Good intentioned people who knew they had bad desires would enter the Priesthood as a framework to not act on those desires, but then they see other Priests being sexually active and just give in.
It also built a network of secrecy - very fine line between covering up your bosses' non-abusive (but in your mind still morally wrong) affair and asking him to cover up your abusive (but in your mind, only equally as morally wrong) activities.
In general, it's one of the arguments for normalizing non-abusive fetishes in the general populace. The more secrecy there is generally, the more truly bad stuff gets covered up.
There is a very clear delineation between temptation and sin in the Catholic world.
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Matthew 5:28
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
Do we not believe that something as reckless as the use of a sodomitic networking application is not deserving of discipline of some kind, even if this is not itself a mortal sin? Priests are defrocked for scandal all the time; e.g. the recent defrocking of Fr. Frank Pavone. And this isn't merely any scandal, but the scandal of nearing a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.
While I have you, would you mind reviewing the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? Among other things, they ask you not to post questions like this in the threads, but rather to ask us at [email protected]. There are a bunch of reasons for that; one is that we're only likely to see your question if you email it to us; and another is that posts like this take discussions off topic.
Preaching the will of organization that condemns them while actively pursuing the condemned interests on public profiles? It seems to me its got to be some sort of mental gymnastics to be choosing that career and sticking with it. Do these people believe that they are intrinsically bad? Do they just not believe what they're preaching? Do they think their niche is the one exception to their faiths belief system?