I'd be curious to know what these gay priests are thinking exactly.

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?

Sometimes you want or feel compelled to one thing, but also really, really want another thing that's in (ideological) conflict with the first thing. Also, spending years as priest and then giving it up sounds harsh, they probably have no marketable skills.

I went to Catholic school. The indoctrination is non-stop. Seminary I would gander is doubly worse. I don't know how true it is but I've long heard that many gay priests discover that fact in Seminary after they've taken a vow of celibacy. I can imagine that's a very tough place to be mentally, especially after making such a commitment.

I went to a catholic school and the indoctrination wasn't that bad. The school would accept non-catholic pupils as well and never really pushed it on them.

My school had non-Catholic pupils as well. After leaving I realized that a lot of what Catholic religious education is centered around is "acts of contrition". You're almost always guilty of something. They use these feelings of shame, guilt, and remorse to teach a lot of Catholic values alongside very strong language around things they don't like. For instance, when I was in school there was a story out of Atlanta, I think, where two gay men had their door kicked in while they were having sex, they were charged with some absurd sodomy law that was still on the books. My religious studies teachers point was that God punished all forms of sodomy, not just anal sex, and that any time you have pre-marital or sex without the intention of reproducing that you have sinned in a major way. I was 12, maybe 13 at the time. This is a small, isolated example but it's part of a pattern I recognized later in life. The stuff really does a number on you.

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.

I was raised in a Catholic home, attended Catholic school 13 years, and lifelong Mass-goer. I don't doubt that your anecdata is valid, but it's not universal.

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.

Appreciate your input and outwardly not stomping on my experience. For what it's worth, the last paragraph of what I wrote agrees with you, not all experiences will be like mine and I've learned that as I've gotten older. I'm glad your experience was good, mine wasn't all bad, but I've had a lot of unpacking to do as an adult.

many gay priests discover that fact in Seminary after they've taken a vow of celebacy [sic].

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 could be wrong about vows of celibacy, but I was pretty sure they have at least commitments to celibacy. Here's a story that backs up what I've said: https://archive.ph/ehobt

You are right. You are only eligible to be in a seminary if you're not married (ok exceptions exist, but then you cannot be a priest) and so long as you are not married you are not supposed to have sex.

Christopher Hitchens famously (and rather politically incorrectly) said:

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.

Christianism considers everyone intrinsically bad.

"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

Only Calvinism subscribes to total depravity. Catholicism and Orthodoxy actually remind us that we are created good, holy, and innocent. Nice try tho.

AFAIK original sin does teach that all men are fallen and require salvation. This doesn’t mean that human nature is all bad and it’s indeed not the same as total depravity. However it’s also not true that men are born holy.

There's a saint in the Catholic church named Andrew Wouters. He was a priest in the 16th century who was a major womanizer with lots of illegitimate children. He ended up getting hanged by Calvinist rebels because he refused to convert. His last words were "A fornicator I always was, a heretic I never was." Again, the pope canonized this guy.

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.

Protestant perspective, that religion is all about consistently following consistent doctrines

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.

Martin Luther's perspective was more of a "Works in thanks of Grace". One is saved by Grace alone, and in thanks for that grace one's works should reflect the will of God as provided in the Bible. EDIT: It's more about works being a demonstration of the faith one has been given rather than works being involved in the receipt of faith and grace.

Sounds like a better system is to be saved by Grace and rely on that Grace to continue to save you as you do whatever you want. Is doing whatever you want a sign of ingratitude? Sure, but fortunately grace can save me from my sin of ingratitude. It's the best of both worlds. I can do whatever I want in this world and get to go to heaven in the next world. Thanks grace!

Remember that a significant amount of american Christianity involves pre-determinism, ie that you're either good or bad, and cannot change that, and the good people go to heaven and the bad people to hell. It has nothing to do with actions but is an inane trait you are born with.

As far as I know, you can be an abstinent homosexual in the Roman Catholic belief. You just can't act on it. I would guess they do think their God is right and act accordingly.

This applies to the entire political class as well, one hand they ll talk non-stop about conservative (or liberal) values and as it turns out eventually, the very same people forced abortions/employed illegals/molested women and so on. I think ultimately there is big difference between what people practice and what they preach and it applies to literally everyone.

"organization that condemns them"

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 won't condemn you for an intrinsic quality you were made with, but I will condemn you for acting on it."

I think most rational people would see through that, it's pretty flimsy.

I think most rational people would see through that ...

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.

It's inconsistent in that it discriminates against a group of people with an undue burden that they can never have a loving, passionate, sexual relationship with adults they feel attraction towards. This is a bit like saying both the wealthy and the poor have equal access to homelessness, and therefore making homelessness a crime punishable with death applies fairly to all classes.

I think you are correct in emphasizing that the burden of the Church's teaching on chastity does not fall equally on all groups of people.

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.

But it should be stressed that this is no way a consequence a specific teaching that targets people with same-sex attraction.

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'?

http://www.catholic-catechism.com/ccc_2357.htm

Of course the Church has a well-known teaching with regard to this activity. Just like the Church has a specific teaching about artificial contraception. So the Church obviously says specific things about specific things.

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.

Some theorize that gay men historically found themselves pursuing the priesthood because this was a way to not have a romantic life with women without raising eyebrows. There’s also an element of repressed homosexuality that’s sort of difficult to communicate but it’s likely that these gay priests spend a lot of time with thoughts of self hatred, self-doubt, confusion. maybe god can save me from these thoughts?, it’s terribly complex and as much as I generally don’t tolerate Catholicism and what comes with it I truly feel for these priests

Identity is the word of the decade, and is a helpful one here. For many, one simply is Catholic and one is called to the priesthood.

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)

They believe that one of the fundamental aspects of the human condition is believing that certain things are right but struggling to live up to it.

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.

They also believe the sin is the act not the desire.

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.

Plenty of american christians seem to think the desire is also a sin.

Did you even read the article? These priests were on Grindr. That is different from experiencing temptation.

"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

Imagine spending millions of dollars to prove 32 people are gay. No civil or criminal law has been broken, this isn't about predators and victims. This is essentially a group of people complaining to management because an employee has broken an internal morality code.

Imagine spending millions of dollars to prove 32 people are gay.

Do remember that this particular morality code is an unfashionable one. There are other taboos that also cause a waste of resources by people seeking corrective action where no law is broken and no one is victimized. And those are cheered on because those codes are fashionable.

Sure, this is dumb through and through. But this scenario just has properties that lend themselves to headlines meant to stir people up.

That's thinking from an outsiders perspective.

These people are pillars of their community. To have them teaching other people and leading is just disgusting from their perspective.

Look, I support gay rights, I'm the furthest thing from catholic. But I understand how many communities find homosexuality unnatural and wrong. You should respect that and NOT join that community. Just like how Catholics shouldn't enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, you shouldn't enforce yours either.

"A group of conservative Colorado Catholics has spent millions of dollars to buy mobile app tracking data that identified priests who used gay dating and hookup apps and then shared it with bishops around the country."

Look, I support gay rights

Not sure how you can support gay rights and also be ok with organisations spying on gay people (specifically because they're gay).

One can debate whether or not this practice should be illegal, but it's clearly wrong, even by the tenets of Catholicism itself. Why are they not also spying on straight priests using Tinder?

I mean, it’s not just any organization, it’s the anti-gay organization. At least to me, this fits more into the category of “The Vegan Society spying on its employees through restaurant checking and UberEats orders”, which I wouldn’t describe as “spying on vegans (specifically because they’re vegan)”.

Well no, that would be spying on non-vegans specifically because they’re non-vegan (in the equivalent scenario where they were tracking usage of an app that only offered non-vegan options).

Also, wouldn't that be an extremely weird and creepy thing for The Vegan Society to do? I’m surprised you’d offer this analogy as a defense of the behavior in question.

What tenets of Catholicism does this violate?

Spying on gay people or people in general is a separate issue to the parent comment.

My reply is more referring to the intent of the parent comment. As in how is spending "millions" justifiable to root out gay people in a catholic organization.

I’m not sure I see the distinction. Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. So given that they are not acquiring sex tapes from this data, it’s difficult to see how this is anything other than harassing some gay people for being gay. (If they discover that a priest is straight, do they then jump to the conclusion that he’s having straight sex?)

Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread.

Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex.

Being a pedophile isn't against the law, only engaging on pedophiliac desires is illegal. Therefore I should be ok with pedophiles being leaders of our community and teachers. Right? Wrong.

Examining the technicalities of the rules is just pedantry. There is an obvious intent and overall meaning behind the rules.

Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread.

Thanks for being so polite. This is obviously against the rules here, you're saying it to trigger me.

Pedophilia has victims and pedophiles are a potential danger to children. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him.

The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith.

If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men.

Pedophilia has victims. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him.

Not necessarily. Depending on the state, it's technically pedophilia/rape when a 18 year old female has sex with a 17 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is a virgin and kind of innocent while the 17 year old is a big burly guy and has already had sex with dozens of people. In this case, many states classify 17 year old male as the one getting raped.

The technicalities here literally mask the intent. Intent is what matters here and the circumstances here make the intent less clear in such a way that the technical law can't fully articulate true justice.

But you don't need me to explain this. You are fully aware of what I mean here. When a homosexual man becomes a teacher for an all boys school something is wrong. When a homosexual man joins an organization against homosexuality something is also wrong. It makes perfect sense for organizations to spend money to get rid of these people.

The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith.

I throw this right back at you, your response is not in good faith. You're trying to start something here. I think you're very intelligent and attempting to deliberately turn this conversation into a witch hunt against me.

It is also not inappropriate from many peoples perspective including the people in the article. Homosexuality from the perspective of many conservative and religious groups is Just as deviant as pedophilia. From this reasoning, it makes sense why such a group would form to weed out homosexual priests. Unfortunately, the technical wording of the catholic rules on this matter doesn't govern their intents and feelings about it, and thus they act on their feelings rather then the rules themselves.

It's not about whether the existence of these groups is right or wrong. It's whether these anti-homosexual groups exiling a homosexual who joined their group is right or wrong.

I'm sorry to say, it's right. Those people shouldn't have joined in the first place. If you're not supporting and acting for the principles of this group you shouldn't join. Bottom line. The intent of the action is right, the intent of the people joining the group IS NOT.

I also flagged your post. Despite me giving you a good faith answer, I still consider your answer as someone who is obviously trying to start a witch hunt and get me banned. You are not acting in good faith; you have an agenda and your answer is manipulatively hiding that fact. This type of behavior is a hundred times more vile and insidious then someone who is just trolling (and I'm OBVIOUSLY not).

I recommend we end the conversation here before it gets out of hand. Good day.

Edit: This sentence here was ADDED to your response AFTER I made this reply:

   "If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men. "

Obviously you're trying to retroactively change what you wrote so others seeing it will misconstrue your intent. You could've just responded to me instead of trying to change what you wrote earlier. Complete garbage.

But I understand how many communities find homosexuality unnatural and wrong. You should respect that and NOT join that community. Just like how Catholics shouldn't enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, you shouldn't enforce yours either.

Catholics do enforce their ideas on the rest of the world, as many Christians in positions of power do. Especially in the US. Especially recently, with the surge of extremist anti-LGBT and anti abortion laws, all predicated philosophically on Christian doctrine. People who find homosexuality unnatural and wrong should not be respected, or simply let be, any more than virulent racists or anti-Semites. Tolerance for the intolerant only leads in the extermination of the tolerant.

"Tolerance for the intolerant only leads in the extermination of the tolerant."

This is awfully hyperbolic, I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative. Granted, I'm sure the implication is that it would be a 'righteous' kind of intolerance, but it is rooted in absolutism nonetheless.

I cannot take it seriously because it comes across as an indictment of tolerance and an endorsement of intolerance as a moral imperative.

It's a very simple concept, described by Karl Popper in a single straightforward paragraph, commonly referred to as the Paradox of Tolerance. It's one of those lessons that came out of the aftermath of the Holocaust, which for some reason people go through great pains to refuse to comprehend.

That's fine - should you ever find yourself as part of a demographic that some other group wants eradicated, feel free to defend to the death their right to organize and recruit and argue for that, and tolerate their hatred as much as you like. In fact, just out of principle, make sure they have access to as many platforms as they want and can gather as much political power as possible. Maybe even try to engage them in debate, despite the unequal power dynamic between truth and lies (particularly in the modern ecosystem of engagement-driven social media and manufactured reality) - sunlight is the best disinfectant after all.

I'm sure it'll all work out OK.

This reminds me of the time Irish bishops stopped sending trainees to Ireland's priest training seminary because of how active it was on Grindr [1].

[1] https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/martin-removes-priests...

Small anecdote. I have a gay friend who lives in Maynooth (where the seminary in the article exists, alongside a regular university). Right after moving there a few years back he noted, not without some amusement, that few of the hundreds of grinder profiles in the area contained pictures with faces. Virtually all the pictures were of torsos.

Fwiw I think SF Bay Area Grindr is mostly torsos as well.

It reminds me of my high school English teacher who would give high scores to boys he was attracted to. The next year, when we had him again and it was obvious that nobody was interested in his advances, the scores mysteriously dropped 20 points for the same type of work.

A childhood friend who had attended a Mississippi boarding school transferred back to our school system in the second half of our junior years after having picked up a dope habit over there. He freaked out the first time he saw this particular teacher because the man had a habit of spending the weekend with the priests at the boarding school.

It is questionable that a story about priests using a gay dating app for adults reminds you of... a pedo English teacher you had who hung out with priests? There's a long history of people equating being LGBTQ+ with being groomers, pedophiles and sex offenders, and those stereotypes and false beliefs about one being related to the other are part of what leads to the homophobia that forces priests to be closeted. Perhaps the teacher was around the priests for sex offender reasons? It just seems odd to me to being up pedo stuff on stories about gay people facing discrimination.

It read to me like the advances were made the next year when the students were presumably 18

Why would a gay person choose to become a catholic priest? That's like a short person who has no interest in basketball choosing to be a professional basket ball player.

Why would a straight man (woman need not apply) be any different? The rule is celibacy for all of them.

If you are Catholic and gay, you might feel like perhaps celibacy is the best option for you and in that case, why not consider religious life? I’ve had a number of gay Catholic friends who have started down that path and then decided against it (and some who ultimately continued down it). Not to mention that two male priests going on vacation wouldn’t raise any eyebrows while a priest and a woman going on vacation would.

Catholicism cannot and should not be reduced to a bunch of sexual thou-shalt-nots. Despite some Catholic organizations (like the one in the story) being vehemently anti-gay, the church’s actual teaching is far more nuanced.