Faith or fetish?

If you’re going to be a gay priest then at least gather up the personal dignity necessary to be a gay priest for a religious institution that doesn’t discriminate against you, one that doesn’t scapegoat you to protect bishops who ignored sexual predators, one that doesn’t blame you for the breakdown of society and the family.

If the Klan’s hatred of minorities were but a small portion of their doctrine, they would still be morally repugnant. It’s difficult to imagine how gay Roman Catholic priests can endorse Church doctrine and still look at themselves in the mirror every morning, especially when better moral options for serving their faith exist. If their faith is so tied to Catholicism that they cannot abandon it for a healthier option, then faith, for them, becomes little more than the practice of a fetish. A fetish that is as unhealthy as any other and which has the potential to negatively affect other people more than most fetishes.

6 Comments so far

  1. baliad (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 9:08 am

    if a gay priest agrees with the church’s statements that homosexual acts are wrong and immoral, then why should he go elsewhere???

    contraray to popular belief, just because you’re gay, it doesn’t mean that you personally think it’s right (regardless of what society says)… and with the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to prove that it’s genetic (and there is a lack of it because if there was conclusive scientific evidence to prove homosexuality is genetic, we’d certainly hear about over and over again), it is reasonable to come to such a conclusion…


  2. Joe B. (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 11:46 am

    Because the RCC doesn’t consider him fit to be a priest. Their latest document on the subject makes it clear that priests with a homosexual orientation, celibate or not, lack the maturity to function properly in the job. In typical fashion, though, the RCC wants to have their cake and eat it, too, they wouldn’t dare throw out gay priests who are currently serving, the church would lose too much income. So they publish a document saying one thing, then tell current priests that it doesn’t affect them, and continue their downward spiral into homophobia, with the help of gay priests.

    I don’t know, I guess there are self-hating Jews who have renounced their faith and joined neo-Nazi groups. What’s wrong with that? Being Jewish isn’t genetic, after all, they allow people to convert. I suppose there are people of many minorities hated by the Klan who agree with their doctrine and might join. I’m not sure they’d be welcome, but it seems like we’d hear about them. What’s wrong with that?

    Plenty. It’s not just Catholic priests that I find objectionable, You can see the same thing in gays that work for the Republican party and adopt the anti-gay party line. They sell out other people and trade their orientation like currency for a shot at the inner circle and a big paycheck. If that’s what they value, then fine for them. There’s nothing wrong with setting high goals and working hard to achieve them. But when you have to achieve them at a cost to others, and the cost is something forced on them against their will, the quest turns immoral.

    Gay Catholic priests are odd creatures, willing to lick boots that would rather kick them, but which are worn by people who nonetheless are willing to let them exist if they will only agree that they shouldn’t exist, and that they have no right to exist, and that their existence is problematic for the rest of mankind.

    Really, I should feel more pity for them than anger, but they are adults capable of rational thought and they have and continue to make a choice worthy of derision and scorn.


  3. Laurie (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    Man wrote the Canon Laws against Man.

    The Canon Laws are enforced Segregation of

    the accepted congregates of the Church.

    Canon Law is not Divine nor did a Divine force write it.

    It was written by men with thoughts, opinions, faults, prejudices.

    Laurie


  4. hyacinthe (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 2:23 pm

    maybe i’m taking crazy pills, but also isn’t it possible to subscribe to many of the tenets of an organization but not all, and disagree without completely rejecting something? i can be a democrat and pro-life, or a catholic and for birth control, or a muslim and eat pork, or a jew and not be kosher. being catholic or anything else doesn’t mean blind sycophantish devotion to everything that institution espouses. recognizing that one belongs to an institution that has commited and continues to commit grievous errors doesn’t mean that the whole institution is worthless. catholic social teaching as it relates to poverty, labor, and injustice is as progressive as it gets, moreso than almost any other christian church. unfortunately, when it comes to sex, they’re extremely anachronistic. you have to hope that the church will change. by abandoning it, you’re foregoing any chance to change it.

    just a thought.


  5. Joe B. (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 3:36 pm

    Laurie,

    Yes, and it is maintained by men with thoughts, opinions, faults, and most especially prejudices. When people who lack those prejudices help to uphold those laws, they adopt the prejudices of the men who wrote them.

    hyacinthe ,

    The Roman Catholic Church isn’t a political party. In a political party, change can happen from the ground up. A political party is a marketplace of ideas with few barriers to entry. the Roman Catholic Church is a different sort of animal altogether.

    Catholics subscribe to a doctrine. Their subscription is not a cafeteria-style benefits plan, despite what the subscriber believes. The RCC uses subscriptions, obtained through coercion and indoctrination to add weight to its (im)moral authority. I readily admit that Catholics do tend to be very liberal on some topics. One of the side effects of the Church’s draconian sexual doctrines is to produce a congregation which is very liberal on homosexuality, moreso than nearly any protestant denomination. The problem though is that those participants, to a lesser personal extent than gay priests, contribute to the coffers that are increasingly used to wage a worldwide social and political battle against a minority. And though I’m sure many who consider themselves Catholics would differ with me, if you’re rejecting core teachings of the church then you aren’t really Catholic. They’re just going through the motions. But they could be practicing your faith in earnest at many other churches whose doctrinal practice more closely match their own.

    The only language the RCC understands, as we’ve seen with the pedophile scandal, is money. Threaten them with a loss of income and the church will change. Continuing to enable them and hoping for change is the same thing as doing nothing. If every gay priest and bishop in the US grew a spine, if every gay music and choir director grew a spine, there would be a chance for real change. But, as long as there are large numbers of gay priests and laity pretending that the RCC is doing nothing wrong, there won’t be any change.


  6. Laurie (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

    Funny how St. Augustine couldn’t keep it in his pants

    so he wrote it into church law to help him stay chaste.

    Priest used to be allowed to marry and came both sexes.

    Chastity is voluntary to priest not the other way around.

    In general, people are kept unaware on purpose.

    Reason one: Only the priest were literate; they learned how to use this quite power.

    Laurie



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.