Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Homosexual Priests* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)
Hat tip to Rorate Caeli for this beautiful, beautiful article about the liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood appeared in the CNA.
[…] more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality
One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood – a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge
Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.
It follows an exam of the various way in which a homosexual priest is, ipso facto, unfit for the habit from the liturgical point of view:
About the priest as alter Christus:
Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating priests and others who suffer with Same Sex Attraction (SSA), said in a recent interview with regard to homosexuality in the priesthood, “Narcissism – a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior – is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality. This conflict results in a need to draw attention to his own personality in the liturgy rather than to surrender his personal identity in favor of Christ.”
A priest is supposed to be “all male” as Christ was “all male”:
we must not fail to recognize that Christ also reveals in a uniquely profound way what it means to be “male,” and the reality of Christ’s maleness is made expressly manifest in the Mass where the Sacrifice willingly offered by Jesus in love for His Bride and their beloved children is re-presented. (The reader may also wish to consider how this factors into the Church’s inability to confer Holy Orders upon women.)
Insecurity adds to narcissism to tempt the homosexual priest to make of the liturgy his own show if he thinks that this is “popular” among the pewsitters.
“The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself”.
The pride so developed in homosexual persons makes the rest:
Furthermore, the underlying anger and disdain for authority that is also endemic to homosexuality could lead to rebelliousness and a determination to ‘do his own thing’ with the liturgy.”
Extreme self-centredness of the homosexual person, whose pleasure comes before everything else:
A quest for self-fulfillment on the part of the priest is the antithesis of the spirit of the liturgy, but according to Dr. Fitzgibbons, homosexuals often tend “to see and to treat their own pleasure as the highest end.”
With the introduction of the mass ad populum,
For the priest who also struggles with an underlying inclination toward narcissism, the temptation to use the liturgy as a venue for seeking attention and personal gratification can be all but overwhelming.
The article continues by saying that as no V II document ever mandated the Mass ad populum, the return of the Mass ad orientem for everyone (including NO) might be in the cards in a not-too-distant future.
This excellent article, of a lucidity and political incorrectness which some years ago would have been unthinkable, omits in my eyes to mention the most important reason why a homosexual can’t be priest: because he is a sexual pervert.
All the problem mentioned (the narcissism, the self-centredness, the search for pleasure, the love for show and attention, the tendency to rebellion) can be also present in a heterosexual male, albeit very often and very probably in lesser degree. But crucially, heterosexuals aren’t sexual perverts even if they are weak; homosexuals are sexual perverts even if they are chaste. This is why in the 1930 years or so before the V II madness the Church had – alas – plenty of the first, but didn’t want to have the second. This is also why a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies can’t be priest, even if chaste. Would you want a chaste person with attraction to children to be priest?
Vatican II has brought with itself – along with all the other problems – a perversion of the concept of perversion. Suddenly, taboos were considered minor problems. Whilst Pope Paul VI complained about the “fissures” through which the smoke of Satan was entering – without doing anything to close them, by the way – Satan was entering from the main entrance, undisturbed – nay, welcomed in the name of a new way of “being church” – and ready to wreak havoc for decades to come.
Similarly, and in another ironic/satanic twist of things, the liberal idiots who have opened the doors of the Church to homosexual priests are now pretty much the same people criticising the Church for the very problems they have created.
How long will it take before people realise that Vatican II was all wrong, because the mentality that originated it was wrong in the first place, is truly beyond me. The defenders of V II and the legend of it having being “hijacked” remind me of those senseless dreamers thinking that Communism was good, but its execution bad.
I prefer to keep my eyes open.