Gay Priest? No Such Animal

The terms “gay priest and gay priesthood” have been thrown around the media so much lately that it could easily be accepted as a normal lifestyle. IT IS NOT! A priest who is “gay” in the sense of being an openly practicing homosexual is no priest at all. A priest is “another Christ” and Christ was not “gay.” The idea that a man could hold the Body of Christ in his hands and use those same hands for homosexual acts is an open contradiction. The pestilent disease of homosexuality we see in some sectors today must be eradicated as much as polio was eradicated years ago.

Get AQ Email Updates

22 comments on “Gay Priest? No Such Animal

  1. Dear phaley,
    I think anyone with any sensus Catholicus combined with sensus communis will have to agree that homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle.
    However, about the other assertions, questions will and must be asked:
    1) Not only was Christ not gay, but He was no kind of sinner at all. Does this mean that anyone who sins, even one venial sin, cannot be a priest?…because then he would not be another Christ, would he? As St. Paul says, Christ was like us in all things *except* sin. And elsewhere he says, “In Adam all have sinned”. And St.John, I think, says that anyone who says he is without sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him. So if being an Alter Christus means being sinless, there are, and never have been, priests. Or if it is only mortal sin, or only certain kinds of mortal sin, that invalidate a man’s priesthood, then since there are very many priests who have been, or are now, in such a state of sin, *and without anyone knowing about it*, that means that for two millenia millions of “sacraments” have been administered that were not valid, because the “priest” who administered them was not a real priest. The ramifications are almost limitless. Numberless priests did not receive valid ordination, and became numberless invalid bishops, further invalidly “ordaining” candidates to the priesthood (even the good candidates), therefore we and numberless others throughout history were most likely not validly confirmed, and hardly ever received real Communion, or real absolution in confession, numberless Masses thought to be celebrated were never celebrated, etc.
    2) Was not Judas’ betrayal of Christ an open contradiction? And yet no one says that he was not an apostle. It’s precisely *because* he was an apostle that his betrayal merited withdrawal of grace and his awful punishment.
    You are touching upon a very, very serious point of Catholic doctrine. It seems that, by saying “an openly practicing homosexual is no priest at all” you are saying either that he was never validly ordained and thus never received the indelible priestly character in the soul, and/or that, if he was validly ordained, by becoming a homosexual he lost that character. To avoid possible scandal, please clarify.
    God bless

  2. What I’m saying is that an openly-practicing homosexual who professes to be an alter-Christus cannot and should not be a Catholic priest handling the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. I am not saying that an aspirant to the priesthood must be sinless only that he cannot be an openly-practicing homosexual for that would be a contradiction (two opposites). To say that he must be sinless would deny his very nature as we are all born with original sin. It is my opinion that some within the Catholic Hierarchy would have us believe that the opposite is true, i.e., that Christ would not object to such a practice. Indeed, it goes farther than that regarding sin in general – that Christ would “wink” at some sins whereas we know that Jesus said to sinners: “Go, therefore, and sin no more.” Would He welcome an openly-practicing homosexual who gives up the sin and lives chastely? Of course. But that does not mean that person with such tendencies should be in the priesthood with the obvious concern re: the Confessional. Having said all that I am well aware that I may be in the minority of opinion re: this subject but as Popeye once said: “I ams what I am.”

  3. We have reviewed this issue before. Homosexual conduct is not just a sin. The condition is a mental defect, a defect of nature, which bars the person from ordination. They may not and cannot be ordained. The issue is not the sinfulness of homoerotic behavior. It is an ontological issue, the mental defect of lacking a functioning reason. A hamster or an iguana can be walked through a Catholic ordination ceremony and words of consecration said over them, but they do not “become” Catholic priests by this farce and sacrilege. Same principle involved. An ordination ceremony for a homosexual is illicit and invalid. Ontologically, the sacrilege of such a farcical and blasphemous fake ordination ceremony does NOT result in a Catholic priest, but in a lunatic heretic pretending to be a priest. Lunatics and severely mentally ill people, lacking functioning reason, do not become priests. The sacrilege of such a farcical ordination ceremony is a crime. The frauds need to be removed from active ministry. There are lots of lunatics who want to become priests. They are not validly called to the priestly life and the farce of fake ordination ceremonies do not make them priests.

    The desire for anal sex with another man is a severe mental defect which bars ordination and renders any fake ordination ceremony invalid because the ontological conditions for becoming a priest (functioning reason and common sense) were not present. It’s not just a sin which can be remedied by confession, it is an ontological mental defect and gravely disordered defect of nature. That disqualifying defect does not go away by sacramental Confession.

    We have seen the disaster which results from indulging the fantasy that deranged sex perverts can be ordained as priests. There is a divine message in these scandals: stop ordaining them. Further, it would be an occasion of sin to place such a pervert in the Confessional as a fake priest to hear confessions. That would make the bishop performing the ordination an enabler of occasions of sin. If the bishop is committing a sin by ordaining a pervert (leading the pervert into occasions of sin), what does that tell you about the practice?
    It has to stop. It is destroying the Church.

  4. Such a pervert CANNOT be allowed to handle the Eucharistic species at Mass because of what is involved in sodomy (anal sex). The danger of spreading hepatitis is a no-brainer here. How this ever got started, God only knows. Someone who is regularly committing sodomy on Saturday nights or the early hours of Sunday mornings at gay bath houses or gay nightclubs CANNOT be handling the sacraments at Mass and profaning the Lord with fecal matter, subjecting and exposing the faithful to the contagion of hepatitis and HIV. This is one of the worst aspects of these scandals.

  5. Oh, man. I never thought of that. And here it seemed as if we already “heard it all….”

  6. They can’t say Mass because of the inherent danger of sacrilege, profanation of the sacraments, and the spread of hepatitis. They can’t hear Confessions because that would likely be an occasion of sin for them and, lacking functioning reason and common sense, they cannot adjudicate moral issues of grave matter. They can’t be trusted to supervise adolescent altar boys.
    So, again, in what sense could they be priests?

  7. Sacrilege and clerical sodomy are not just mortal sins. They are crimes. Confession isn’t enough. It would be absurd for a bishop to enable a sex pervert likely to commit crimes to be ordained as a priest. This is like giving a drunk teenager keys to the car (apologies to drunk teenagers).

    It goes against all insurance risk precautions, reason, logic, common sense, and care for the protection of the sacraments and the priesthood against the crime of sacrilege. Now, a Roman Catholic bishop CANNOT recklessly put the sacraments and the priesthood in likely danger of sacrilege through some false charity for homosexual sex perverts. Neither can the Pope. If they need help direct them to a therapist or psychiatrist, or offer them spiritual counseling, but don’t ordain them as priests.

  8. Firstly, I do hope we all realize that we are fundamentally on the same side here.
    I am totally, irrevocably, and even violently opposed to every single one of the sacrilegious (first of all!) and other harmful effects of homosexuality in the priesthood that you gentlemen have well pointed out. And I assuredly share in your strong desire to GET THIS DAMNABLE PERVERTED ROT OUT OF THE PRIESTLY RANKS. And the spirit that can be perceived in me through the sum total of my posts on various subjects leaves no room for doubt on that point.
    With that out of the way, my reason for posting on this particular matter is that the waters have become *doctrinally* decidedly muddy.
    This is *dangerous* because it is causing confusion as to the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders. This confusion is leading to false ideas concerning this sacrament, which will have real and serious consequences in the real world at some point, as I already showed in my first post, where I said that if a state of sin (of any kind) invalidates Holy Orders (either during their supposed reception or after), the whole priesthood has been long since destroyed, because while there may still be some valid priests around today, they are very few, *and no one knows who they are*, because, in the various lines of apostolic succession, the overwhelming likelihood is that *sometime and somewhere* since the Ascension of Christ, every single one has been broken because a bishop that has ordained priests or consecrated other bishops was not a real (valid) bishop since he was a *secret* homosexual.
    The terms “may not” and “cannot”, being used in reference to whether a homosexual is or is not a priest, have to be clarified.
    Going with the literal dictionary sense of words, ‘may not’ can mean ‘possibly not’. It can also mean ‘should not’ (as in ‘ought not’, ‘is not permitted’).
    I think it would be helpful to be clear then in future, and stick to the synonymous, but much more theologically clear terms ‘illicit/illegal’.
    Obviously, we all agree that attempting to ordain a homosexual is *illegal* (which in turn means ‘sinful’, ‘reprehensible’, ‘evil’, ‘outrageous’, etc.)
    So if we agree that ‘may not’ means ‘illegal’, we agree that homosexuals may not be ordained. It would not be difficult to prove this by referring to unimpeachable authorities in Tradition, but, thank God, that is not necessary.
    By a similar explication, in the common dictionary sense, the term ‘cannot’ means ‘is *unable* to’. So that term should only be used (if it must be used at all) as synonymous with the clearer theological term ‘invalid’. So if we say that a homosexual “cannot” be ordained, we should be intending to say that, if his ordination were attempted, it is *unable to happen*; you can do all the ceremonies you want, the indelible character of Holy Orders is NOT going to be conferred, and so the supposed ordinand, aside from any question of moral correctness/legalness, simply will not *be* a priest of any kind, whether a good one or not. And BTW, since ‘ontology’ (metaphysics) is the science of *being* as such, it is clear that when one says that a homosexual is not ontologically a priest, one means that he *is* not a priest; that he was not *validly* ordained; that he did not receive the character and sacrament of Holy Orders.
    Now, Howl, especially in his more recent posts, has shown that he understands terms in this precise fashion, so the above explication is not for him, but for the sake of anyone else who may have been wondering. This became undoubtedly plain to me in this statement (which nevertheless required some parsing on my part, which I insert in brackets):
    “[Homosexuals] may not and cannot be ordained. The issue is not the sinfulness of homoerotic behavior.”
    [Actually, the sinfulness IS an issue, though only to the “may not” part; it is not *licit* (i.e. it is sinful) to ordain a homosexual)]
    “It [the “cannot” part only] is an ontological issue, the mental defect of lacking a functioning reason.”
    So if I can address Howl on this…
    As you say, we have reviewed this issue before, but now I think our positions are clear enough so that they can be laid out in a bare-bones, and reliable, fashion.
    We do not need to deal with the licitness part, since we are agreed on that. (As an aside though, there are quite a few requirements in Canon Law for licit ordination).
    Then let’s move to dealing with the conditions for *valid* ordination.
    I have done this once before, but here they are again (more complete this time):
    1) A baptized male person
    2) Who, IF he is an adult, intends to receive the sacrament
    3) And who undergoes a rite of ordination containing the necessary matter and form
    4) Conferred by a validly consecrated bishop who intends to give the sacrament
    For those conditions under dispute here, I will give support from authority.
    It will be noted that the recipient being sane is *not* a requirement for validity. In fact, #2 says “IF he is an adult” because, as I said when this issue first came up — (and I gave references) — even babies *though they do not have the use of reason* can be validly (NOT licitly) ordained. So can the insane.
    Here are the citations:
    Summa, Suppl., Q34, a2 — “I answer that it must be said that, by childhood, *and other defects by which the use of reason is taken away*, there is presented an impediment to an act [of reason]. And therefore they are not competent of receiving all those sacraments of such kind as require an act in receiving the sacrament: as Penance, Matrimony, and others. But because infused powers are prior to acts…therefore all the sacraments in which an act [of reason] in receiving them is not required from necessity of the sacrament, but [in which] some spiritual power is divinely given, children and others who lack the use of reason can receive…”
    The Old Code of Canon Law, 968,1, gives a list of conditions for validity which is not complete: “Only a baptized man validly receives Holy Orders”. We can only note that the use of reason, or sanity, is not mentioned here. But approved commentaries on Canon Law have more to say. For instance…
    Creusen, Epitome Juris Canonici, 1940, V.2, #243 — “The perpetually insane, [and] children in the cradle are validly ordained…”

    So these conditions for validity *are not my opinion*. They come from the teaching authority of the Church. I have no doubt that I could further support them with many other citations.
    Thus far, to my recollection, I am the only person in this discussion who has bothered to consult and try to present the teaching of the Church on the matter. No one else has offered a single thing other than their off-the-cuff opinions and feelings. I find that incredible amongst people who want to be Traditionalists. The very mark of a Trad is that he prefers the perennial wisdom of the Church to his own opinions.
    So, I conclude that insanity in a candidate for Orders is not an invalidating factor. I will be happy to hear arguments to the contrary, but unless they cite approved theologians or other Church authority, they will be a waste of time. Our personal opinions mean nothing compared to that.
    And even if that were proved wrong, one still has to prove first of all that homosexuality is in itself a form of insanity.
    Right at first glance, at least two things would have to be done
    1) Show why not one person in a thousand, in this day and age or any other, will *agree* that all homosexuals are insane just because they are homosexuals.
    2) Show why other kinds of habitual perversions, like sado-masochism, heterosexual child molestation, heterosexual sodomy, bestiality, murder, torture — or really *any* kind of habitual sin at all — are not *also* evidence of insanity. After all, they take us away from happiness and lead to misery. What sane person wants that?
    Before even tackling such a task, in order to avoid wasting a lot of time, job one would be to define the term ‘insanity’.

  9. As soon as it is found out, discovered, and verified that a pervert has been falsely, fraudulently, and sacrilegiously ordained to pretend to be a priest for unsavory purposes, the pervert in question has to be suspended from ministry IMMEDIATELY, and then defrocked and laicized very quickly. There should be a canonical process of appeal (in the event that someone has been falsely accused or framed). But in the case of a real sex pervert, they have to be removed from the priestly state. The mental defect and incapacity of reason is a disqualifying defect of irregularity in the ontological order relating to the powers of reason NECESSARY for being a priest. An incontinent sociopath, lunatic, or someone with Tourette’s who has no self-control CANNOT be a priest. When they are fraudulently and sacrilegiously ordained that has to be corrected through swift laicization.

    It appears that if the relevant allegations are true, the former Cardinal of Washington, DC was a deviant lunatic who lacked the powers of reason and self-control necessary to be a priest. Whether that mental defect and incapacity developed before or after ordination, we don’t know. Whenever it becomes evident and is proven, the pervert has to be laicized. It’s purely academic to debate in what sense such a lunatic was ever a priest in any real sense. Keep in mind, ex opere is a theological theory relating to the Donatist schism. It is not a part of divine Revelation that any deranged sex pervert lacking reason can become a priest. The idea is a modernist novelty of the 1970s gay movement in modern America.

  10. Gentlemen, this is not only a truly vital theological and philosophical exploration of great importance, it is being carried out with great skill by each of you.
    My compliments to each of you.

  11. Couldn’t agree more as to laicization of pervert priests. In fact I would add that they should be either handed over to the secular authorities for trial, and punishment if found guilty, or better yet, tried and punished by the Church herself, and punished more severely than current namby-pamby law in most countries these days allows. That should include the death penalty for molesters, and burning at the stake for the worst cases. No I am not kidding. There was a time when this was done; a time when we were much more merciful than we are now; more merciful to the victims, because we put the fear of God into even hardened sinners, to dissuade them from committing crimes; more merciful to the guilty perpetrators, because we put before them a certain date for their death, so that they could not keep saying “It was not so bad what I did. I need not be sorry” or “I will repent…but later, for I still have time” — only to die of a sudden heart attack, or in their sleep, without Confession. The Church, being a self-contained society, has always had, and always claimed, the right to do this. See Dz Dz 1731, which says that the Church can run its own courts to try clerics for civil or criminal cases.
    Here is the full text of OC Canon 968:
    §1 – Only a baptized man validly receives Holy Orders, but *licitly* [only] he who is endowed, in the proper judgment of the Ordinary, [and] according to the norm of the sacred canons, with the due qualities, nor is restrained by any irregularity or other impediment.
    §2 – Those who are restrained by irregularity or some impediment, even given that it has arisen after ordination without their own fault, are prohibited to exercise the Orders received.
    What are the “due qualities”, so that someone MAY receive orders *licitly*?
    Canon 974 lists some. I put only those pertinent to our discussion:
    “That someone can be *licitly* ordained, required are:

    2º Morals suitable to the Order received.

    4º Due knowledge”
    Obviously a homosexual does not even come close to having suitable morals to receive *any* Order.
    And one like Fr. Martin, or so many others, whose intellects are so darkened by their hardness in sin as to think that homosexuality is good, or that God made them that way, obviously lacks due knowledge. The evil of homosexuality is known by the Natural Law.
    Such persons then MAY not be ordained; it is a grave sin and crime for them to receive Orders.
    And the ordaining bishop sins mortally also by giving them.
    Canonon 973, 3 — Let a bishop confer Holy Orders on no one but that he is morally certain, *from positive arguments*, concerning his canonical suitability. Otherwise, not only does he very gravely sin, but also commits himself to the danger of communicating in other sins.”
    Note the expression “from positive arguments”. A positive argument is one based on known facts, not things that are unknown, speculative or possible. The bishop must have sufficient *evidence* of the good character of the candidate. He may not just suppose it, or say “Who am I to judge?”
    Given this, although it is galling to me to do so, I have to apologetically suggest some bracketed additions in the following (though I think the substance is quite correct):
    The mental defect and incapacity of reason is a disqualifying defect of irregularity in the ontological order relating to the powers of reason NECESSARY for [LICITLY] being [ordained] a priest, [or exercising Holy Orders if they are already criminally received].
    An incontinent sociopath, lunatic, or someone with Tourette’s who has no self-control CANNOT [LICITLY] be [made] a priest, [or use the priestly powers]. When they are fraudulently and sacrilegiously ordained that has to be corrected through swift laicization.
    And a couple of comments:
    “Whenever it becomes evident and is proven, the pervert has to be laicized. It’s purely academic to debate in what sense such a lunatic was ever a priest in any real sense.”
    [Assuredly the perverts have to be laicized. But laicization is done in an ecclesiastical court. Since only real priests can be laicized, no one can be laicized unless he was validly ordained. Thus the court cannot even do its job without determining that fact. It would seem then that the question is eminently practical.]
    “Keep in mind, ex opere is a theological theory relating to the Donatist schism.”
    [The terms ‘ex opere operato’ (from the work being worked) and ‘ex opere operantis’ (from the work of the [recipient or minister] working) relate not only to Donatism, but are fundamental concepts in sacramental theology, and have been in use since probably 1200 A.D. ( The concepts they represent go back much farther, to the Donatist controversy at least. Neither of these terms are theories, but are used to explain theories of grace, especially sacramental grace.
    The quotation I gave from the Summa in my last post does not use either of these terms, but it is an example of how they could be useful in presenting the Summa’s theory as to why Holy Orders could be validly conferred on an infant or insane person.
    He makes a distinction of the sacraments: Some (Baptism, Holy Orders) implant a character in the soul that gives one a power of doing something (in the first case, acting as a member of the Church; receiving the other sacraments, in the second, of performing the sacraments). That power is conferred by the act of administering the sacrament (ex opere operato, from the sacrament being done), and no act on the part of the recipient is required (it’s not made valid ex opere operantis). (Of course, IF the recipient has the use of reason, the act of intention to receive is required, but only because God will not give a sacramental grace to one who does not want it). The sacrament of Confession, on the other hand is made valid both ex opere operato and ex opere operantis. Confession of itself has the power to forgive sins, but will not do so unless the recipient also makes acts of contrition, sincerity, tells his sins, and does the penance.
    “It is not a part of divine Revelation that any deranged sex pervert lacking reason can become a priest.”
    That is true. On the other hand, it is the common teaching of the Church, that moral uprightness is not required for validity of ordination.
    The idea is a modernist novelty of the 1970s gay movement in modern America.
    Not so. This teaching goes back at least to the Donatist controversy, which conflict already made clear the grave practical problems that would arise if the Donatist theory of required moral uprightness were held. All the citations from authorities that I gave are pre-1940.


  12. Keep at it gents. These matters deserve (and are receiving in your discussions) a thorough vetting.

  13. It is not a question of moral uprightness. The issue is not just that homosexual sex is a mortal sin.It is not analogous or the same as a heterosexual priest fornicating or committing adultery with an adult woman which while still a mortal sin is not ipso facto contrary to nature. Sodomy is a crime and an abomination. They don’t get all better just from Confession.

    It is NOT true that “any” Baptized Catholic man can be a priest. Retards and lunatics are barred from ordination as well as homosexual sex perverts and pederasts on the same grounds of irregularity and mental defect. Look it up. It is neither a part of divine Revelation, an article faith, or part of the teachings of the Church that Catholic men in a condition of irregularity and mental defect can be priests. Obviously, the Lavender mafia is a bit squeamish about it being a mental defect and gravely disordered.There has to be a reasonable likelihood of continence and moral sanity in candidates for ordination. Now, it is a mental defect. Anyone who can’t get through a weekend without sodomizing, groping, flashing, or fondling a teenage boy can’t be a Catholic priest. Not because queer sex is a mortal sin (as if the Donatist ex opere operato is relevant). The mental defect of desiring sodomy (anal sex), an abomination contrary to nature, thinking that is normal (moral insanity) as “Father” Martin does and apparently the former Cardinal of Washington, engaging in propaganda campaigns to push LGBT lifestyle and ideology (again, contrary to nature), all of that disqualifies such a mentally-disturbed deviant pervert from Holy Orders and ordination. Further, a bishop who might ordain a homosexual sex pervert or pederast, would be placing and endangering the sacraments (the Eucharist, Confession, Matrimony) of profanation and sacrilege. So the act of the bishop in presiding over an ordination of a homosexual sex pervert (or any pervert) is itself sacrilegious. So the bishop is barred, prohibited, and banned from doing that on the basis of divine law. This makes it invalid and fraudulent with an overriding moral burden to correct it under pain of sin (i.e., the pervert MUST be laicized swiftly and immediately). Every minute of slow-walking and delay in removing such a criminal pervert from priestly life is another mortal sin.
    Now, if such moral sanity and prudence had guided the bishops and the Holy See in past decades to remove such mentally-disturbed criminal perverts, the Church could have avoided much of these grotesque and disgusting scandals.

    Baptized adult Catholic men suffering from sodomite sex perversion are barred from priestly ordination due to irregularity and mental defect (which are ontological grounds for their disqualification from the priestly state). Anyone who thinks same-sex anal sex is “normal” or “desirable” or that two men can or should homoerotically kiss each other during the “sign of peace” at a modernist Novus Ordo Mass as a worthy “coming out” display of queer exhibitionism is suffering from a mental defect of moral insanity and cannot be a priest for the above-stated reasons. Security should remove any perverts engaging in immoral exhibitionism during Mass.

  14. The idea that the theological theory of ex opere operato from the Donatist controversy makes it OK to ordain sodomite sex perverts is howlingly absurd and a new one. Is there some encyclical you can quote which asserts that it is fine and OK to ordain a practicing sodomite? This is a recent idea from the 1970s gay movement. Even as of the modernist pontificate of Benedict XVI it was STILL contrary to church policy (officially) to ordain homosexuals or to admit them into seminaries. Hence, illicit, disobedient, and heretical.

    The supposition that homosexual sex, as a mortal sin, is covered by some sort of Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card from ex opere operato from the Donatist controversy is the worst sort of jesuiticalmodernist hair-splitting casuistry from situation ethics. It’s embarrassing.

    It’s. not. just. a. mortal. sin. It is a mental defect and defect of nature. Confession does not cure ontological mental defects and defects of nature. God could grant the grace for miraculous healing, but if Cardinal McCarrick was going to Confession all those years, apparently God did not grant such healing. So homosexual sex perverts CANNOT be priests.
    It has NOTHING to do with the hair-splitting shenanigans from the Donatist controversy.
    It’s not the mortal sinfulness which is the issue. It is the ontological mental defect. That bars homo sex perverts from ordination. Period. You can flamboyant Father Martin can try to argue against that, but that emotivist liberal gay silliness is from the 1970s Gay Movement in the United States. It is not an authentic Catholic teaching.

    • [My “two cents” – hopefully not “a day late and a dollar short”]

      St. Thomas Aquinas:

      That Holy Orders can be validly received by a person in Mortal Sin:

      Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 36, Article 1:

      I answer that, As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), “even as the more subtle and clear essences, being filled by the outpouring of the solar radiance, like the sun enlighten other bodies with their brilliant light, so in all things pertaining to God a man must not dare to become a leader of others, unless in all his habits he be most deiform and godlike.” Wherefore, since in every order a man is appointed to lead others in Divine things, he who being conscious of mortal sin presents himself for Orders is guilty of presumption and sins mortally. Consequently holiness of life is requisite for Orders, as a matter of precept, but not as essential to the sacrament; and if a wicked man be ordained, he receives the Order none the less, and yet with sin withal.

      Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Medicine (Granada-Barcelona) and Psychiatry (Harvard), Opus Dei numerary (celibate):

      New York Times, Marcy 3, 2002:

      With this in mind, Pope John Paul II’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid.

      “People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained,” Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory.

      “That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality,” added Dr. Navarro-Valls, a Spanish layman who is a [physician and] psychiatrist by training, [practice and teaching]. “But you cannot be in this field.”

      Dr. Navarro-Valls compared the situation of a gay man who becomes a priest to that of a gay man who marries a woman unaware of his orientation. Just as such a marriage can be annulled, considered invalid from the first, the ordination might similarly be invalid, he said.

  15. As the author of this post, I fell it is time to end discussion on this topic. Sensitive eyes are being exposed to words that I believe are best left unsaid. If anyone feels it necessary to continue this discussion, they should open a thread of their own. Thank you.

  16. My interest was in the ontological issue per se. But the Colonel makes an excellent point. This has been some kind of week!

  17. The mortal sinfulness itself of the behavior is not the main issue. It is the ontological and mental defect in which the power and faculty (potestas) of reason (ratio) is impaired and deficient for exercising the rational judgment and duties of a priest. This is an ontological defect of nature in the order of reason. A mental defect which disqualifies any such person from the priestly state.

    So we don’t need to hear any more about the Donatist controversy and ex opere, as if that applies. Ancient theologians and legalists had no knowledge of the hard-wired neurology and endocrinological abnormalities of perversion and its incurable nature. Since pederast generally don’t get better or grow out of their perversion, they can’t ever be priests. It’s crazy to reach back to the Donatist issue to cook up a crackpot argument that they can or should.

  18. Thanks for all the great posts and for bringing the topic up for discussion! God Bless !

  19. I don’t think phaley will mind if I just add one more response, given the nature of that response. Apologies to him if I have miscalculated.
    Howl, you are imputing positions to me that I have never held, and in fact have explicitly and forcefully contradicted. In the interest of eliminating annoyance that is completely unnecessary, let me point out certain things you have said, and correct the misapprehensions.
    1) “The idea that the theological theory of ex opere operato from the Donatist controversy makes it OK to ordain sodomite sex perverts is howlingly absurd and a new one.”
    I AGREE — and I agree *violently*. I never even came close to saying it was *OK* to ordain sodomites. I just stated, *approvingly*, the 1917 Code of Canon Law (not exactly a Modernist source; promulgated by St. Pius X), which says that it is illegal to ordain men who lack suitable virtues — and this sets a far higher standard than merely not being a homosexual. I repeat myself: “Obviously a homosexual does not even come close to having suitable morals to receive *any* Order.”
    2) “The issue is not just that homosexual sex is a mortal sin….Now, it *is* a mental defect…(moral insanity)”
    I GET that your main point is that homosexuality is a form of insanity.
    I have made clear that I do not agree. C’est la vie.
    I have also cited authorities showing that it is not the teaching of the Church that insanity makes the reception of Orders INVALID. So the Church teaches that, even IF homosexuality IS a form of insanity, it does not invalidate the reception of Holy Orders. You insist that it does. C’est la vie.
    Let me say *again*, that just because the Orders given are valid, it does not make it a *good* thing to give them. As the Canon Law I quoted states in clear and strong terms, to ordain a man with moral defects unsuitable to the priesthood — and that includes a LOT more defects that are a lot LESS serious than homosexuality — is a very grave sin.
    Parenthetically, we could add that it is precisely because the Orders conferred are going to be *valid* that it is such a huge sin to confer them.
    In justice I thought it necessary to make these clarifications, because a straw man has been set up to impersonate me, and I was obligated to knock it down. (I’m not suggesting, BTW, that malicious intent was involved).
    As to the rest, we are now going in circles here; there is no real conversation going on, because what I am saying is being ignored and replaced with other things. So, I leave things as they are, and for the record, so that I will not again be obligated in justice to add more to this thread, I repudiate in advance anything that anyone will SAY that I said. What I have ACTUALLY said stands as it is.
    With all due respect, concerning the statement of Navarro-Valls:
    1) He is Opie Dopie, and hence unreliable
    2) I seriously question whether his actual words, and their meaning in context, agree with the report given in the New York Times. We all know what the New York Times is.

    Pax omnibus.

Leave a Reply