In what was suppose to be a nod to the traditional moral teachings of the Catholic Church, South American socialist Pope Bergoglio “urged homosexuals who are already priests or nuns to be celibate and responsible to avoid creating scandal” according to the Reuters news service.
With his book, “The Strength of Vocation” soon to be released, Reuters also noted, “It is better that they leave the priesthood or the consecrated life rather than live a double life,” the Argentinian pontiff said.
Reuters also went out on a limb by citing what the news service thinks the Catholic Church teaches, “The Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful in themselves, but homosexual acts are.”
Well, Reuters did get it mostly right, but they left out (purposefully?) a very important specific point.
Here’s what Reuters got right; as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357), (emphasis mine) “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
That pretty much nails down the act itself.
But what of, as Catholicism describes it, what of those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”? What of those who take Holy Orders and consider themselves as celibate homosexuals?
Even those with a proclivity to a same-sex attraction, but choose not to act upon the impulse, are as defined by the centuries-old teaching of the Catholic Church, “objectively disordered”.
I’m fairly certain that those who identify as arbor-sexuals find gratification in getting freaky with maples and eucalyptus trees are mentally off kilter. Don’t you think these folks are “objectively disordered”?
And no… I’m not grasping at the ridiculous.
Check out an article I wrote earlier his year regarding a professor from the University of Michigan, and another prof at UC Santa Cruz, who were “teaching” their respective students about “Ecosex”.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Anyhow, for those who are sexually excited over a diagram of a stamen and pistil, but choose to live a celibate lifestyle, would you still not consider this person morally questionable? Or as we use to say in the Marine Corps, a few swings short of a proper ass-whoopin’.
As for me, I take the 2,000-year-old teachings of my Church quite serious. Those whose mental heath leans towards a sexual abnormality, “celibate” or not, those poor souls have no place being the shepherd of anyone’s flock.