I'm seeing a few comments that imply a serious misunderstanding in what I'm saying in the video, so I'd like to clarify. I'm not saying that homosexual activity was considered good or _normal_ in the ancient world. I'm saying that it wasn't uncommon. This isn't the same as saying that it was celebrated or that it was prolific or that the ancient world was _super gay, y'all_ . It's like saying that swearing or drunkenness (an analogy I use in the video) wasn't uncommon. They appear within social life and when discussed, as they are in Plato's symposium, it's done almost playfully and without shock or revulsion among it's hearers. This certainly stands in contrast to a place like Victorian England. The point is, that though such activity may be present and certain people would partake, they would never consider it an innate orientation or an identity. Another good example of this fact is the many stories you will find about sexual behaviour among boys (with each other) at boarding schools during the Edwardian era. C.S. Lewis talks about it as if it was an expected part of initiation. But those same boys would go on to marry and have children. This was no more evidence of a determined orientation than getting drunk on occasion is to being an alcoholic. Claiming that because such events are part of one's experience means that it defines their identity is entirely modern and in opposition to every other place and time. Lastly, I'm in no way suggesting that men with such temptations or tendencies should become priests - they shouldn't. The thesis of the video is that forming one's identity based on one's temptations is dehumanizing which is why, for those priests that do suffer with this temptation (while that's a big problem), it doesn't make sense to think of them or identify them as "gay priests" the way the secular world does. It's more accurate to think of them as imposters *if* they were screened for this problem and hid it in order to advance into the priesthood. Unfortunately, not all were screened or discouraged, in which case, it wouldn't be fair to accuse them of being imposters.
Brian you are my friend..... Full of hubris..... A semantic playground..... how many times Brian does a bank teller have to skim let's say 5% of the deposits that come through their window on any given day, before we call them a Thief? How long would you continue to deposit money at that particular bank or with that particular teller?. I mean I don't want to dehumanize anyone and if this person has those Tendencies toward temptation but they didn't intend to when they were hired, I don't think we should Define them by their actions should we brian? You can play on the semantic play around all you want brian, I just won't be play it on the same playground with you.😂😂 Enjoy the Ancients Brian, they actually are alive and well.
Say. Seen much Greek pottery? All the male figures chase each other around with erect penises. Why are so many antique statues missing genitals? Because Christians chopped off all the erect penises. Just sayin'
@@mikelavigna9298 You completely miss the point. It's not what we call them but how they identify themselves. Nobody identifies themselves as thieves nor do they celebrate it. It's a completely different linguistic usage. One is used to describe an act. The other is used to describe an entire disordered identity around which they base their entire life. Even a thief doesn't consider it essential to their humanity. You are conflating two different issues because it is easier to do that than draw proper distinctions which you fail to understand.
@@PaulDo22 wow, thanks for explaining ur mansplaining to me. I are so much smarter now!!! 🤔🤔🙄 How about the identity, of, I am a "sinner" as opposed to I am a decent "normal" person who occasionally steals, defrauds, conflates, lies and deceives or has inappropriate sexual encounters with ur spouse, girlfriend or children? I guess viewing ur self as a "sinner" would be dehumanizing also? . 🤷👀🤷 How about clarity and accuracy over self-serving delusion? Semantic playground is busy these days......
@@mikelavigna9298 I understand your sarcasm but how would you like it if Brian misconstrued you in your comment? Why not give him the same courtesy by trying to understand him for what he says rather than what you misinterpret him as saying.
As a person who struggles with her eating habits, the "closeted glutton" hits hard. Once you train yourself to crave unhealthy foods and use the physical hit they give you to deal with your emotions, it's the unlearning of that which is the true crux of the problem. Even when you lose a lot of weight, deep inside you still feel the same - you still "identify" as fat. And truly, those temptations don't go away. But you absolutely do train your body out of bad habits eventually; you start craving healthier things, and you start appreciating how much better overall you feel when you keep making better choices. You should never identify yourself with sinful actions, the consequences of your sin, or the label the devil wants to use to cover up the fact that you're God's beloved child. Everything gets easier with practice. Both virtue and vice do. So be careful what you practice.
“Virtues are formed in man by his doing the actions,” - Aristotle “We are what we repeatedly do… therefore excellence is not an act, but a habit.” - Will Durant
The thought of Socrates baiting someone who was enfatuated with him into a long philosophical conversation and the other man being super frustrated that he can't get anything but conversation from him is so funny to me 😂 Socrates was philosophy-zoning people.
I knew personally a priest who left the priesthood, partly due to the prevalence of this. Half of the local “priestly class” was ghey. There was a very active “social life.” He was a very good priest. But the “social pressure” was horrible. And ten years after leaving, he’s married. The priesthood is becoming a way to meet others of the same inclination. We need to pray for our priests.
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 Matrimony and Holy Orders are not mutually exclusive. The first Apostles were mostly married men before being made Bishops by Christ.
While I agree the concept of sexual orientation is modern, there is an association between the number of priests who engage in homosexual behavior and sexual abuse.
there is an even stronger correlation with those that own the media and the tunnels they dig in new york and the islands they take children to and how they cover up their own crimes and magnify/project them on to others
Which is why I find it amusing when gay people mock the Catholic church for its sexual abuse scandals. Uh, guys, it's those preists who share your proclivities that are largely responsible for these atrocious deeds. Not that being gay automatically makes one an abuser, but neither does being a priest. So, maybe they shouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses.
100% of predator priests were or still are members of the catholic church. That's a 1:1 correlation, shall we start drawing inferences about catholics based on that?
I’ve always felt that admitting someone to seminary who struggles with homosexual tendencies wouldn’t be such a scandal if we lived in a society that doesn’t encourage anyone with that proclivity to define themselves by their ability to stick their body parts in places they don’t belong. I’d even go so far as to say that certain major scandals would never have happened if the sexual revolution never occurred.
CCC 2358: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a TRIAL. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
Actually, it is negligible. The most comprehensive study ever done on the prevalence of homosexuality was done by the University of Chicago, and they concluded that less than 5% of the population are homosexual.
@@amyschlegel11805% of 8 billion people is negligible? That’s more than the population of the United States. Would you be alright with letting such a large population simply send themselves to hell because of our negligence?
@@joeberta368 It's not my "reasoning." It's been known about for a long time. Read "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael S. Rose. So much of the "scandal" in the Church isn't about children, it's about predatory homosexuals preying on older altar boys and young seminarians. The secular media just likes to put them all in the same group. Fr. Altier talks about how bad the seminaries were in the 1980's.
Although this reasoning is appealing on the surface, it would condemn women who innocently and trustingly marry someone deceptive who is basically not attracted to her, which is cruel.
Not only that, but it would lead to a much higher rate of exposure to HIV than she would face if she married a hetero male. We're talking life and death here, perhaps even of the children.
I'm not sure that is the case, while a cheating husband who engages in risker sexual activities is at more risk of getting a disease and passing it to any sexual partner, including their wife, the real betrayal is the adultery and lies. Refusing to call same sex attracted men "gay" does not make them innocent of offending God and their legitimate wives if they abuse themselves and other men, it protrays their choices for what they are, wretched sin, not who they are.
@@joytotheworld9109According to the CDC, 71% of all new HIV cases are from gay/bisexual men despite them only accounting for 2% of the general population. So yes, speaking as a woman, while the emotional betrayal would be heartbreaking, an HIV diagnosis would be a potential death sentence. Marrying a man to "convert" his sexuality is a horrific bargain for all involved.
No woman wants to feel her husband is “attracted enough” to have marital relations. That is insulting. I understand wanting a marriage and family to fit in to society. But that is a personal want that doesn’t take into account everyone else. Children also want a father who fits in. Wives want a husband who fits in. At a bare minimum couples where one partner is SSA should attend a 12 step program for at least a year to be able to recognize and call out their own and each other’s bullshit. Marriage is hard enough when everything is working in your favor.
Benedict was holding the chain of the anchor preventing titanic from sinking. Now it's all going down lightning fast. Lord Jesus have Mercy on us, sinners.
No, Jesus is the anchor, and He assured us “upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell she’ll not prevail against it .” Put your trust in God and not in men.
That's so true. A priest who enters into the priesthood with an intention to break his vows of chastity is not a "gay priest." He is a fraud. And if they keep their vows of chastity, it seems rather odd to identify as "gay." Satan wants us to identify with our sin, so that we will remain trapped in our sins. "Sexual identity" is just that, a lie from the devil and we shouldn't be paying lipservice to it. I do wish, though, that people who are struggling with homosexual attraction and want to grow in virtue had more of a space to do that in the church and experience councilling and healing. Similar to those who are trying to overcome porn addiction.
homosexuality is an unbreakable habit, once you go down that road you are forever a slave to it. It is a constant fight and such people cannot be priests.
The church has been largely hamstrung by the state when it comes to helping people with same sex attraction. Anything labeled as "conversion therapy" has essentially been outlawed despite the fact that all therapy seeks to convert one from an undesirable psychological state to a desired one. It's really sad that people who genuinely want help in their struggle with same sex attraction can't even get it.
I would suggest watching metatron's video on this. He is a historian of classical antiquity. He puts the idea of Greek and Roman sexuality in the proper light. He also touches on the fact that it was not universally accepted and there were many rules to such an arrangement.
Priests who are even tempted or inclined or especially if they flat out desire homosexual activities is serious. All the men who were abused by priests when they were children would agree. It is because they are in a position of power. They are in a position of trust. That is a dangerous combination when you add in a perverted "craving". Sadly, that appeitite gets filfilled on the innocent and weak. Horrible. An abomination actually.
It's a mistake to take a deep-seated, permanent, abnormal desire or inclination and pretend it has nothing to do with your identity. No, it shouldn't dominate your identity, but simple acknowledgement of it need not rise to that. Since this particular action is extremely common in our time, a shorthand label for the people who experience the desire for it is inevitable. If we use it with clarity, it need not be problematic. In fact, if you want to minister to these people, you need to understand that this is part of their lives. Many will have experienced shame as they came to understand this part of themselves. Many will have experienced insult or injury from others who discover it about them. They all experience a desire that they can never legitimately fulfill. It is foolish to ignore this or pretend it doesn't matter.
Brian, thank you so much for this take. I happen to be a man on the road towards a priestly vocation who also happens to have the SSA struggle. I thank God for my faithful family, especially my good father, as well as other good men in my life as role models and have, by God’s grace, never acted out on these desires with others. Your explanation and take are very important and need to be heard- you put clear language to how I view masculinity, integration, and vocation. God bless you.
That actually happened to me once, when I was driven to the birthday party of a mutual friend where the guests were majority LGBT, and was introduced as heterosexual. It was rather embarrassing, actually. Like, can't I decide whether or not I want to be checked out/leered at by a bunch of dudes? I can repel guys on my own, thank you very much.
I am a white (supremacist) , male (Patriarchal oppressor, heterosexual (Cis baby maker), Catholic (greatest oppressor of humanity). Therefore, I am the most evil person on the planet......
Worse still is when they find examples in the animal kingdom and use those animal behaviors to justify their behavior and desires. That too is dehumanizing. Animals also commit murder, infanticide, cannibalism, and incest. There are countless videos of aped throwing their poop at things, and even drinking their own pee. Essentially there examples of every imaginable behavior within nature, but that should not ever become the basis for human ethics or morality. Finally theres thd twisting and distortion if what live is and is not, primarily through the awful tautology "love is love" which erases all dustinction between all loves while injecting dex and sensuality into all forms of it. It opens the door to pedophilia, dendrophilia, bestiality, incrst and everything else.
This is a very good discussion of a difficult topic. Modern thought is crazy at times - "Your authentic self" is not the self who strives to be its best, and improve, the theory is that it is only your worst flesh-driven self. From there it is just a small step to what you described. Do Roman Catholic clergy have something like the Oratory of the Good Shepherd (OGS), a dispersed religious community in the Anglican Communion? It might be a good idea to have something like it. Members are bound together by a common rule and discipline, which requires consecrated celibacy. They are strengthened by prayer and fellowship; they meet regularly in chapter and retreat, and report to one another on their keeping of the rule.
The best priest I've ever had was "gay" as in he used to partake in homosexual activities and experiences same-sex attraction. Once he became catholic he gave that up and now he helps other same-sex attracted catholics to overcome temptation and find their vocation. Every priest is capable of sexual sin, just cause their gay doesn't necessarily make that more prevalent. I'm obviously not supportive of same-sex intimacy, but I don't think we can entirely discount people's ability to be holy just because they have temptations. This is why we need to be careful how we use our language. Saying "gay priests are bad" is incredibly confusing, what we should be saying is "Priests taking part in homosexual activities is bad".
Brilliant perspective, Brian. You have a good point, one worth considering...it's just hard to imagine our Church openly accepting "gay", and with so much at stake in the world (above and beyond someone's sexual proclivity) that many, including myself, jump to needle-pegged conclusions before the discussion begins. We're just very polarized, as a populous. Deep breaths should prevail, and your message is nothing if not a call for a "deep breath". It's not the issue one thinks it is if we rise above it to find solutions. People are, indeed, much more than their appetites.
I really enjoy your content! I have seen other videos or content where people claim in the Biblical era, they didn't have "modern homosexual relationships". I have always suspected there was no real difference. People often think we are so different in human nature from people a couple thousand years ago.
I think there is a difference between a priest simply being gay and a priest being actively involved in a gay seksual relationship. If the priest has committed to be celibate, unmarried, and true to the teachings of scripture then it doesn't really seem to matter what his sexuality is.
Mmm, that's just not something there is a need to throw around all the time. There are no hetero parades, there are no hetero rights, there are no hetero months. Why? Because usually, heterosexuals don't have the need for affirmations all the time and they do not usually make everything in their life about that. And why? Because, at the end of the day, it is normative behavior. And if anyone is super aware of that, it's the LGBTQIA community first and foremost.
@@stephenson19861 i agree with most of your comment, but i think the comment you're responding too is likely referring to labels, which is a good part of what this video is about. even calling something "normative" is labeling it. we comprehend "heterosexual" because the label matches the conceptual form. while my identity is generally "normative", i do recognize i have both normal and abnormal within me and when compartmentalizing to just my sexual behaviors and inclinations, "normative" is generally an accurate method of communicating their quality or disposition. while not comprehensive of me as a total entity, it is still accurate in what it's trying to represent and not dehumanizing.
Our whole current worldview, particularly with regards to sexuality, has been seriously distorted by the virtually universal use (and expectation of use) of contraception.
The homosexual mentorship ordeal continued between priests and seminarians well through the 1900s, and it was definitely a contributing factor to the abuse crisis, especially with so many seminarians of the early 1900s never having typical teenage heterosexual relationships. It was common practice and often swept under the rug. I would not be surprised if the same sort of activity is still happening in some parts of the world.
I love your channel Brian! You’re a great man! Keep doing this work for the restoration of the Kingship of Christ! I will pray my Rosaries for you and your family!
Brian, thank you for putting into audible words what has been at work in the back of my own mind. The past 100 years, interested parties have been working to normalize certain behavior. We are at a point where we are told our carnal desires define us to our core. (Why this is being done is a conversation for another time.) It seems that some individuals have so involved themselves in this concept, to question it is to evoke a belligerent response from them. What comes to us through the "grapevine" regarding certain cliques within the community of priests indicates there are individuals who would regard the priesthood as a career path for the proclivity they pursue, disregarding any vows of obedience or chastity in serving God as a priest. The same holds true for all religious communities. What seems to be overlooked (and vilified by such proponents) is that there are those of every proclivity who take seriously the vows they make to serving God as opposed to following the dictates of usurpers of such service. The zeitgeist of the current age would have us believe everything is centered on the selfish expression of power, personal and political, and that there is neither "right" nor "wrong" in doing so (with exception of opposing this view). My most common pray is for all to be open to the providence of God, knowing that there are many who prefer the council of the whisper campaign from the Deceiver. I have heard the idea that the amount of art pieces from the ancient world depicting certain acts between "consenting adults" as proof of the open acceptance of such acts during that time. Have also come across historical information that runs counter this idea. The preservation of such art works that have been found is likely due to being stored for more private purposes as opposed to public display.
When you offer a guy a life style that includes frequent theatrical rituals, fancy luxurious clothes, full sanction for wearing dresses, a socially acceptable reason to avoid marriage, and a males-only domestic community, what do you expect to attract? I'm Catholic, by the way. And I love the Mass. But I've also known priests who say that the seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality.
Priest's vestments are not dresses. They are simply vestments worn over regular clothing. Would you call the garb of the ancient Greeks and Romans dresses?
I always thought how dehumanizing it must be for these people to constantly feel the need to identify themselves by their sexual preference for example an adulterer , alcoholic drug addict or gossiper doesn’t identify themselves by their sinful preferences and if they did, how sad and dehumanizing that would be. All people are made in the image and likeness of God and we all fall short of the Glory of God.
why do you creeps treat sexuality like it’s just a “sexual preference”? why do you strip away everything about our culture and our relationships and the romance and expression? we aren’t talking about sex when we say we’re lgbt but people like you only fixate on the sex. it’s gross. the way you act is gross
Good Words, Brian. I love your effort to avoid splitting hairs, and stereotypes! And the boldness with which you called some frauds! Hopefully folks will dig down deep as think some of this through. BTW, while what you described about morality in the Greco Roman world is sadly very true. So much, it shocks me. It was not common among the Jews. Which I find interesting. Especially in light of their worship of the Canaanite gods.
7:40 Every man thay has received the holy orders is a real priest, even if he has no faith and is in mortal sin. Is it healthy to have them like this? Of course not. But the sacraments we may get through them are real still and this great good is fruitful for the Church in spite of everything else.
I have so admired Brian's podcast for a long time and this is the first time I have found myself disagreeing with him. The gluttony analogy is way off, also. And a man with same swx attraction can legitimately be termed a homosexual. Well, there's too much to discuss in a comment but it is a very big problem, I don't care what the Roman's did, it was disordered then and still is. Yes, we love the sinner and yes, men with same sex attraction do not sin until they act on it, but the attraction itself is disordered. Please don't be an apologist for allowing men with SSA into the seminary.
I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood. I'm definitely NOT condoning allowing people with such tendencies into the seminary. I'm criticizing the modern notion of identity based on one's temptations which is why the phrase "gay priest", which makes sense to the secular mind, is a misnomer.
@@BrianHoldsworthI am sorry Bryan, but lately, your videos have been very strange and you have been “defending/promoting/supporting” sinful behaviour that is totally and undoubtably against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Greeks famously engaged in homosexual activity, in europe homosexual activity is referred to as 'going Greek'. This was not considered by other europeans as you imply as in anyway 'normal' The Romans did not condone and prohibited this kind of activity, they were however keen on crucifixion. Just because something was done in the past does not make it permissible in the present
Well there are indeed priests that identify themselves as gay. But yes, identities are a form of social constructs, I think in the context of sexuality they developed as a counter reaction to the pathologizing of certain sexual or gender orientation based on cultural values shaped by a Christian society. Celebrating pride parades then meant embracing an identity that’s viewed defective in the eyes of the general public. This recently happens with the neurodivergent movement too. A label is something that creates bonds and relation to other individuals in a collective, as me and you share a collective in the identity of being Catholic despite probably having vastly different opinions on various issues. So taking on an identity in light of discrimination can give a sense of belonging and togetherness helpful to overcome hate and rejection. Also being gay has two different connotations: one that’s an echo of the former pathologization of sexual and gender orientation and one of identity itself and when referring to „gay priests“ the former is often meant. The queer community offers a wide variety of different identities one can choose to claim or not (e.g. bi, pan, just queer etc.) despite being called „gay“ by the general public. The question in the exclusion of „gay seminarians“ is then: what’s this „deep seated homosexual tendencies“? Obviously a pathologization, unable to communicate a clear line what’s „deep seated“ and what’s not. Anyway, I would support not calling anyone gay that doesn’t identifies as gay, this certainly includes priests as well.
I agree with you 100%. The only issue is someone could say if homosexuality is an activity not an identity, then you can just as well say heterosexuality is an activity too. I don't consider myself heterosexual for engaging in said acts, I consider myself "a heterosexual" because that's my proclivity.
Brian you're normally spot-on, but I'm going to definitely disagree with you on this one. What we have in these modern times is definitely an identity marked by a core inclination and a repetitive propensity to sin in a very specific way. And people given to these things have no slightest business near the priesthood.
@@PaulDo22 what did he communicate so clearly? His was mostly an appeal to how things were viewed in societies of the ancient past and not looking at how things are today. In today's world, it absolutely is about identity as much as anything else.
@@donm-tv8cm See Brian's response. You are introducing arguments for the sake of argumentation that have nothing to do with what he said. Hence he agreed with your comment rather than argue.
This sounds awfully like a Motte Bailey fallacy. "a chaste priest who occasionally partakes..." is about as oxymoronic a statement as can be stated. An "in the closet glutton", while having comparable internal "paths" from committing to resistance and then succumbing to temptation in sin, has very different ramifications from other types of sin. If you steal from a man, you make restitution, but if you commit adultery, you are put to death (OT Law). While they may not be an eternal label, earthly labels may definitely be appropriate. We should always strive to keep our commitments, but not all violations are wholly equal. A priest who serially violates his commitment of chastity, and compounds it with homosexuality, is definitely not "a committed priest". This is a very bizarre take, imo. Maybe you're trying to be more subtle than it comes off, but this comes off as super wonky argumentation.
The damage done by priests with that objectively disordered inclination makes perfect sense, which is why those who have that objectively disordered inclination should not be allowed in seminaries. Hopefully, men like James Martin, SJ will repent and get the help they need instead of spreading false hope to vulnerable unbelievers. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are very clear.
I've heard that back in the 50's and 60's the church excepted homosexul ( promoted somewhat, but never officially) to join the priesthood , and if they took vow celibacy, and were sanctified this was supposed to quill their homosexual tendancys? Well we seen how well that worked.
@sitka49 it also was a position that they can make money without fear of being judged or found out which would put them at risk of loosing there job. Back then someone who was gay or was highly suspected of being gay because of tendency or if they where effeminate risked loosing there job, being denied or kicked out of housing. The priesthood was a vocation that was a higher calling that allowed gays a place to call home so they wouldn't fear loosing there housing security and a way to live without fear of not being able to make money and a life.
@@sitka49who better than a gay person to fulfill that position. They can't pursue marriage in full context and experience that straight ppl could. They are naturally prone due to the times of loosing job and housing security. They are not attracted to women so procreation is kinda out the window and if they do marry a women they would have to think about men to simply perform and they can't emotionally bond like a straight men can to women. Where else can they go to have some form of life that society prevents them from having.
In the ancient pagan world tje mindset was that good and bad behaviour was all part of the human nature, therefore somewhat understandable and tolerable. Christianity came and made it explicit that we would no longer tolerate bad behaviour, it would be imoral and we dont want imorality.
Excellent analysis! Have you ever listened to the UA-camr 'Metatron'? He has done some good work analyzing and contextualizing sexuality in the ancient world.
It also makes sense when you consider the Bible. The reason why homosexual wasn't the thing is because ancient languages didn't use identity culture. There was no "gay", there were behaviors like Onanism, Sodomy, "laying with" etc.
"Gay" is a political identifier; "homosexual" is a technical one. Priests who struggle with same-sex attraction SSA are not "gay" in the political sense...unless they are frauds as you point out. Good video! Any priest who does not intend to be celibate (whatever his sexual attractions are) is not a serious priest.
It's not exposed to be a political identifier when someone is gay that says nothing political in where they lean. Most people who are gay don't even consider it a political identifier it's just a term that describes there human experience of being in a sexual minority group and who they are capable of falling in love with.
@@KennyBaker-1219 I mean the word became involved in the late 60s and early 70s with homosexual rights, and "gay" became the sign of acceptance and pride. Actually, "queer" is probably the prime political terms now.
@@KennyBaker-1219 I thought the older term was "homosexual' and that "gay" was a sort of kinder, politically correct word that arose along with the homosexual rights movement in the 1970s. The opposite of heterosexual is homosexual. The opposite of "gay" is what? Sad? Melancholy?
@zzzaaayyynnn queer is more of an umbrella term usually used by people who know they are part of lgbt community but are not entirely sure or who are not completely decided on where they fit in entirely. That's my dumb downed simplified way of explaining it from pov.
Telling people not to use the word 'gay' encourages them to hide the truth (which I would hope Christians would not be in favor of!). If someone uses the word gay, it often just means they are attracted to the same gender, not necessarily that they plan to pursue a life based on that. Saying that using 'gay' by default defines someone's whole identity is kind of dehumanizing. Identity is made up of many different pieces. You don't know big a part of a person being gay is unless you ask them. A priest might identify as gay, not because he has ever acted on his inclination, but because he wants the (gay) people under him to know they are not alone, and they can live God-honoring lives. Don't shame people into hiding that they are gay, let them be open about their inclinations (the good and the bad) so they and their community can work together to honor God, knowing the truth about each other.
These are interesting insights that I’ve never heard packaged like this. I now recognize the pigeon-holing that the modern world embraces. I also wonder how many same sex attracted people are brainwashed into believing they must live every moment that way to be “ authentic “.
Gay, homosexual: attracted only to the same sex Straight, heterosexual: attracted only to the opposite sex Bi, bisexual: attracted to males and females. You spent 5 minutes explaining how bisexuality was the norm in roman times but that they didn't have a word for it. If a preist is attracted to men and only men, he is gay. It doesn't matter if he's chaste or not and the idea that a gay preist is just not something that could exist is just laughable.
Gay people don't need the Pope's approval. We could create an online seminary open to all. All the baptized share in the priesthood of Christ. This is Church doctrine.
Common sense: Following the publication of The Book of Gomorrah, Pope Leo praised Damian’s sentiments in a starkly graphic letter which reads in part: “For how may one be a cleric … if he does not fear to be soiled either by his own hands or those of another, fondling his own male parts or those of another, or fornicating with contemptible irrationality either between the thighs or in the rear?”
You desperately need to reevaluate your understanding of the Greek and Roman world and their acceptance of homosexuality. It was neither respected nor common, which may be hard to believe after years of neohistorians touting that it was based on very few documents. Recently Leather Apron Club dissects the evidence of such in both cultures and it would probably do you good to wipe some of your misconceptions clean on the subject. It’s not all wrong what you say but much of your foundations sit on falsehoods. This is only a critique of the first portion of the video, not the last.
Even before 2 minutes Brian as uses some exemples. Even before Socrates exemple. Maybe you disagree, mo problem. But definetly Brian as done a point about homossexuality being common place in Grece and Rome.
Is your love and desire for your wife just an appetite, Brian? Could you transfer those same feelings to a man if you had to? If not, that is the reason why gay people largely no longer have "beards" and are simply in relationships w/those to whom they are attracted. Not that difficult to understand.
Muh greeks and romans were gay. Stop it man. There have been people trying to fight that narrative and just flippantly calling attention to that stereotype is ridiculous.
Yea, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said that such activity wasn't uncommon, and again, the literature says as much, but that nobody would embrace it as a kind of habit of behaviour or identity anymore than they'd endorse drunkenness.
I believe a lot of the Roman army, and greek amies had lot were homosexal tendancies among the ranks which made them good fighters. In fact they had to force a lot soldiers into hedro marriages to keep the ranks up ( population). In fact in the 9th century there were monasteries closed by the vatican - because of rampant homosexuality and the practice mysticism with the monks.
I had a lot of ancient history electives back in school. that was a long time ago. - The thing that stuck with me - considering I had a friend I went to school with that was molested by a priest. He had a lot of problems. The biggest issue he had was his parents didn't believe him. yrs later with class action lawsuit he and a few others that were molested by this same priest won. This prompted me to read books on the old church. But think about it, a closed community of all men, isolated, and if some of those men had homosexual tendencies' (gravitate towards) what a better place to go with possibly like minded men? - Then from time to time a young boy that was misbehaving at home would be sent to a monastery, for discipline ( religious indoctrination/ education) - I'm sure the parents of the child didn't think that's what they meant by discipline or education? It would be like throwing chum in the water for sharks
It is not an ontological category of being. People practice sodomy, and enter into a homosexual lifestyle. As St Paul astutely notes: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.”
I agree that our modern day society has the tendency to put labels on people based on only a small set of characteristics. Indeed, people may eventually view themselves according to these labels. However, I think that people who identify themselves as being homosexual are perfectly capable of knowing that they feel that way. In your video you talk only about sexual desires, and leave love out of the picture. It may be easy to ignore that part if you only talk about the Greek symposia, but more recent history shows us that people who are homosexual are incredibly determined to express their love. The desire to be able to marry is an example of this, and I am proud that my country, the Netherlands, was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Perhaps the Bible states that such love is not possible, but then I would say, look, listen, and love. Even though I actually find your story quite objectionable, I do think you convey it respectfully.
Love is to will the good of another, sexual desire is not intrinsically loving. To say that a man ought not lay with another man is not to diminish the love they ought to have for each other. We are called to love more, not less. Love is not diminished when it's not sexual.
🕊️Ten reasons why matrimony itself proves that homosexuality is in fact a sin: 1. What did our Father say in reference to matrimony? * ”Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 2. Did Jesus reaffirm our Father’s view on matrimony? * ”He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?” Matthew 19:4-5 3. Did the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles reaffirm our Father’ & Jesus’ view on matrimony? * “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Ephesians 5:31 4. Is Jesus’ example of love separate from an individual’s immorality? * ”And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.” Ephesians 5:2-3 5. Do the works of the flesh pertain to immorality? * “Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,” Galatians 5:19 6. How does immorality pertain to sex specifically? * “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathens who do not know God;” 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 7. Why should we avoid immorality? * ”Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18 8. Under what condition is immorality permitted? * ”But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:2 9. Is immorality outside of matrimony idolatry? * ”Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Colossians 3:5 10. Were we warned about certain people who would gain admission to our Father’s church and pervert the grace of our Father into licentiousness? * “Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the deepest darkness until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.” Jude 1:3-8 In conclusion to homosexuality, not only can we conclude that our Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles clarify matrimony between heterosexuals but further stated that immorality was only permitted through heterosexual matrimony. If immorality is only acceptable between heterosexuals then by default, immorality & matrimony between homosexuals is not only sinful but contradicts our Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles. Even though we know more now about sexual orientations, who will dare claim our Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles knew less if they know past, present and future?
Why not repeat the Pope’s words? He’s your spiritual leader, no? And wouldn’t your audience benefit from hearing those words and evaluating their merit?
Just because the Pope uses bad language (the use of an offensive swear word, twice, when referring to homosexuals is not, sadly, an isolated incident, he is reported to shout and swear at his officials regularly, in private) does not mean that a Christian should ever use bad language.
Your description of attitudes to homosexual activity in the ancient world are absolutely echoed in the modern world…to some extent. American politicians visiting African countries and lecturing Africans about “gay pride” are clearly greeted with blank stares or some anger. Because most Africans are believing Christians who simply see homosexual activity as a mucky “sin”… that you shouldn’t commit and if you do, ask for gods forgiveness. The idea that the state under American “guidance” should simply cancel the sin and celebrate it instead with parades and queer flags and the invention of a new type of human for whom the sin IS their “identity” helps Africans to see the US as the centre of degeneracy in the world. Are they wrong in that view?
I usually agree with you. No need to confuse this topic which you seem to do. I spent several years in a major seminary. The fact is that there is an inordinate amount of gay men who are seminarians and ordained priests in the Church. It seemed like many were also active. From what has occurred in the Church over the last several decades it seems to me that gay men in general probably should not be ordained. I believe JPII said they should not. Also your depiction of gay activity in the ancient world as the norm between guys is absolutely not true. Did some of the upper class the one percenters engage in this, yep. It was not considered normal by the populous in the ancient world.
@@philalcoceli6328 Well send is a myth, and I don't know what he Satanists personally But your correction is summarily dismissed because your religion is nothing but hate. So, run along, scooter, and stop bothering your betters
Permit me to suggest Leather Apron Club who has completed in-depth research into claims that sodomy was de rigueur in Greco-Roman society. In hoc signo vinces +.
So ancients wouldn’t have considered themselves gay? It’s almost like ideas and knowledge change and develop over time. Try explaining germs to the ancient peoples lol
Well that's exactly the core question. Does the mere fact that a man is attracted to other men mean that he is to the core of being a "homosexual" and that is a key part of his identity? Modern society would say yes, but I think the true answer is no. We are more so the sum of our choices than the sum of our base inclinations.
The ancient Romans were not particularly nice people. Unwanted babies were just taken out to a remote location and left to die. No Christian should look to the ancient Greeks or Romans as examples of how to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus. We should look to the Jews - not perfect, of course - King David was an adulterer and a murderer, however, he did listen when he was rebuked by the Prophet for his sin and he did repent. Someone summarised the ancient Romans “so clever, so cultivated - but what brutes”.
This is a no brainer. The devil,satan will always tempt,always,always. To fall into the temptation is to fill another seat in HELL!! The LOVE of the lord is what my soul yearns for most. NOT sinful temptation.
You are correct. Saying someone 'IS gay' is a misnomer. Homosexuality is not something you are, it is something you do. And whereas 'temptation is not a sin', desiring any immoral sexual pleasure in your heart, like adultery, means you have sinned.
Speaking as a gay person, the Catholic position that being gay is A CHOICE is completely wrong! I am 88 years of age and, being gay, I know the territory! I lived a big part of my life in complete denial and have come to realize that one cannot escape their orientation! Married for 18 years, four children, and due to a patient and loving wife, I was able to survive the marriage despite my orientation. Eventually, reality set in and the marriage broke up! Catholicism needs to be closer to Jesus and more detached from a bible-based orientation to be a reality-based religion!!!
@@mx_moi1964 Sorry! To be told what I think is not Catholic teaching, you need to know that I am not a Catholic and couldn't care less what the church thinks! Science is more intelligent than a Middle Ages church (circa 1500) that feels that modernization (science) is somehow evil. God damn - gays are human beings and are children of God. Sexual attraction is scientifically true to all human beings and to moralize this is wrong! God gave us our attractions and only He can explain why this is true!
He was NOT complementing them on it, he was just demonstrating that the modern conception of "homosexuality" as a core feature of a person's identity is a new invention and that even a culture that was rampant with sodomy (like ancient Greece) did not consider "homosexuality" to be intrinsic to a person's identity.
Lowest of the low. How low can our Church go? Thank GOD for the Holy Bible : our Sanctuary, our Refuge. When even holy people lose their heads, the Teachings of the Lord are Rock-Solid. Read and re-read your 4 Gospels if you want food for thought, children of Yeshua. Our Father, Commander Supreme Jesus the Messiah be Exalted and Praised. AMEN.
n general, are these types capable of providing the faithful proper fatherly guidance? Also consider the modern day leftist ideologies associated with disordered passions, as well as the effect that can have on young boys who want to serve or are considering their vocations.
I'm seeing a few comments that imply a serious misunderstanding in what I'm saying in the video, so I'd like to clarify. I'm not saying that homosexual activity was considered good or _normal_ in the ancient world. I'm saying that it wasn't uncommon. This isn't the same as saying that it was celebrated or that it was prolific or that the ancient world was _super gay, y'all_ . It's like saying that swearing or drunkenness (an analogy I use in the video) wasn't uncommon. They appear within social life and when discussed, as they are in Plato's symposium, it's done almost playfully and without shock or revulsion among it's hearers. This certainly stands in contrast to a place like Victorian England. The point is, that though such activity may be present and certain people would partake, they would never consider it an innate orientation or an identity. Another good example of this fact is the many stories you will find about sexual behaviour among boys (with each other) at boarding schools during the Edwardian era. C.S. Lewis talks about it as if it was an expected part of initiation. But those same boys would go on to marry and have children. This was no more evidence of a determined orientation than getting drunk on occasion is to being an alcoholic. Claiming that because such events are part of one's experience means that it defines their identity is entirely modern and in opposition to every other place and time.
Lastly, I'm in no way suggesting that men with such temptations or tendencies should become priests - they shouldn't. The thesis of the video is that forming one's identity based on one's temptations is dehumanizing which is why, for those priests that do suffer with this temptation (while that's a big problem), it doesn't make sense to think of them or identify them as "gay priests" the way the secular world does. It's more accurate to think of them as imposters *if* they were screened for this problem and hid it in order to advance into the priesthood. Unfortunately, not all were screened or discouraged, in which case, it wouldn't be fair to accuse them of being imposters.
Brian you are my friend..... Full of hubris..... A semantic playground..... how many times Brian does a bank teller have to skim let's say 5% of the deposits that come through their window on any given day, before we call them a Thief? How long would you continue to deposit money at that particular bank or with that particular teller?. I mean I don't want to dehumanize anyone and if this person has those Tendencies toward temptation but they didn't intend to when they were hired, I don't think we should Define them by their actions should we brian? You can play on the semantic play around all you want brian, I just won't be play it on the same playground with you.😂😂
Enjoy the Ancients Brian, they actually are alive and well.
Say. Seen much Greek pottery? All the male figures chase each other around with erect penises. Why are so many antique statues missing genitals? Because Christians chopped off all the erect penises. Just sayin'
@@mikelavigna9298 You completely miss the point. It's not what we call them but how they identify themselves. Nobody identifies themselves as thieves nor do they celebrate it. It's a completely different linguistic usage. One is used to describe an act. The other is used to describe an entire disordered identity around which they base their entire life. Even a thief doesn't consider it essential to their humanity. You are conflating two different issues because it is easier to do that than draw proper distinctions which you fail to understand.
@@PaulDo22 wow, thanks for explaining ur mansplaining to me. I are so much smarter now!!! 🤔🤔🙄 How about the identity, of, I am a "sinner" as opposed to I am a decent "normal" person who occasionally steals, defrauds, conflates, lies and deceives or has inappropriate sexual encounters with ur spouse, girlfriend or children? I guess viewing ur self as a "sinner" would be dehumanizing also? . 🤷👀🤷 How about clarity and accuracy over self-serving delusion? Semantic playground is busy these days......
@@mikelavigna9298 I understand your sarcasm but how would you like it if Brian misconstrued you in your comment? Why not give him the same courtesy by trying to understand him for what he says rather than what you misinterpret him as saying.
As a person who struggles with her eating habits, the "closeted glutton" hits hard. Once you train yourself to crave unhealthy foods and use the physical hit they give you to deal with your emotions, it's the unlearning of that which is the true crux of the problem. Even when you lose a lot of weight, deep inside you still feel the same - you still "identify" as fat. And truly, those temptations don't go away. But you absolutely do train your body out of bad habits eventually; you start craving healthier things, and you start appreciating how much better overall you feel when you keep making better choices. You should never identify yourself with sinful actions, the consequences of your sin, or the label the devil wants to use to cover up the fact that you're God's beloved child.
Everything gets easier with practice. Both virtue and vice do. So be careful what you practice.
“Virtues are formed in man by his doing the actions,” - Aristotle
“We are what we repeatedly do… therefore excellence is not an act, but a habit.” - Will Durant
The thought of Socrates baiting someone who was enfatuated with him into a long philosophical conversation and the other man being super frustrated that he can't get anything but conversation from him is so funny to me 😂 Socrates was philosophy-zoning people.
Philozoning perhaps :D
😆
It never happened.
I knew personally a priest who left the priesthood, partly due to the prevalence of this. Half of the local “priestly class” was ghey. There was a very active “social life.”
He was a very good priest. But the “social pressure” was horrible. And ten years after leaving, he’s married.
The priesthood is becoming a way to meet others of the same inclination.
We need to pray for our priests.
Wait, priests can marry after leaving? I thought it left a mark upon you for your whole life.
Yes they can. They get a degree of layity, no longer an active priest, no more facilities but you are right. The seal and mark stays.
I have been told the book Good by Good Men talks about this directly.
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 Matrimony and Holy Orders are not mutually exclusive. The first Apostles were mostly married men before being made Bishops by Christ.
@@kemmow25Yes it does.
While I agree the concept of sexual orientation is modern, there is an association between the number of priests who engage in homosexual behavior and sexual abuse.
there is an even stronger correlation with those that own the media and the tunnels they dig in new york and the islands they take children to and how they cover up their own crimes and magnify/project them on to others
Which is why I find it amusing when gay people mock the Catholic church for its sexual abuse scandals. Uh, guys, it's those preists who share your proclivities that are largely responsible for these atrocious deeds. Not that being gay automatically makes one an abuser, but neither does being a priest. So, maybe they shouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses.
There is one thing to be a homosexual male, but all homosexual males are not pedophiles. You keep lumping the two groups together.
100% of predator priests were or still are members of the catholic church. That's a 1:1 correlation, shall we start drawing inferences about catholics based on that?
@@david-nt3cz It helps if you ask people like this if they think the catholic church paid out over $3 billion to consenting adults.
I’ve always felt that admitting someone to seminary who struggles with homosexual tendencies wouldn’t be such a scandal if we lived in a society that doesn’t encourage anyone with that proclivity to define themselves by their ability to stick their body parts in places they don’t belong. I’d even go so far as to say that certain major scandals would never have happened if the sexual revolution never occurred.
It would still be a scandal. Don't kid yourself.
They did, but they never reported it. - Similar to definition of catholic sex -"Everybody know about it ,but no one talks about?"
The predators are there to try to destroy the Church. The disorder is called ephebophilia.
CCC 2358: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a TRIAL. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
Actually, it is negligible. The most comprehensive study ever done on the prevalence of homosexuality was done by the University of Chicago, and they concluded that less than 5% of the population are homosexual.
@@amyschlegel11805% of 8 billion people is negligible? That’s more than the population of the United States. Would you be alright with letting such a large population simply send themselves to hell because of our negligence?
You've changed my mind on what the word "gay" should mean. Thanks for the insight!
Gay or not a priest is bound by the vow of chastity under pain of grevious sin.
That is a matter of being catholic not of being a priest. If you believe the rules are from God, that is.
The fake ones don't care about vows. They are there on purpose to try to destroy the Church from the inside.
@@julieelizabeth4856that is a stupid reasoning. Good luck with your ability to critically think.
@@joeberta368 It's not my "reasoning." It's been known about for a long time. Read "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael S. Rose. So much of the "scandal" in the Church isn't about children, it's about predatory homosexuals preying on older altar boys and young seminarians. The secular media just likes to put them all in the same group. Fr. Altier talks about how bad the seminaries were in the 1980's.
@@julieelizabeth4856 this is excellent reasoning and common sense
Although this reasoning is appealing on the surface, it would condemn women who innocently and trustingly marry someone deceptive who is basically not attracted to her, which is cruel.
Not only that, but it would lead to a much higher rate of exposure to HIV than she would face if she married a hetero male. We're talking life and death here, perhaps even of the children.
I'm not sure that is the case, while a cheating husband who engages in risker sexual activities is at more risk of getting a disease and passing it to any sexual partner, including their wife, the real betrayal is the adultery and lies.
Refusing to call same sex attracted men "gay" does not make them innocent of offending God and their legitimate wives if they abuse themselves and other men, it protrays their choices for what they are, wretched sin, not who they are.
@@joytotheworld9109According to the CDC, 71% of all new HIV cases are from gay/bisexual men despite them only accounting for 2% of the general population.
So yes, speaking as a woman, while the emotional betrayal would be heartbreaking, an HIV diagnosis would be a potential death sentence. Marrying a man to "convert" his sexuality is a horrific bargain for all involved.
@@ulsterbenny495marriage is a vocation not a right. Not all are called and not all are capable.
No woman wants to feel her husband is “attracted enough” to have marital relations. That is insulting. I understand wanting a marriage and family to fit in to society. But that is a personal want that doesn’t take into account everyone else. Children also want a father who fits in. Wives want a husband who fits in. At a bare minimum couples where one partner is SSA should attend a 12 step program for at least a year to be able to recognize and call out their own and each other’s bullshit. Marriage is hard enough when everything is working in your favor.
Benedict was holding the chain of the anchor
preventing titanic from sinking.
Now it's all going down lightning fast.
Lord Jesus have Mercy on us, sinners.
No, Jesus is the anchor, and He assured us “upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell she’ll not prevail against it .” Put your trust in God and not in men.
That's so true. A priest who enters into the priesthood with an intention to break his vows of chastity is not a "gay priest." He is a fraud.
And if they keep their vows of chastity, it seems rather odd to identify as "gay."
Satan wants us to identify with our sin, so that we will remain trapped in our sins. "Sexual identity" is just that, a lie from the devil and we shouldn't be paying lipservice to it.
I do wish, though, that people who are struggling with homosexual attraction and want to grow in virtue had more of a space to do that in the church and experience councilling and healing. Similar to those who are trying to overcome porn addiction.
They have plenty of place to do that. And there's no comparison to any other addiction. It's perverted and intrinsically disordered.
homosexuality is an unbreakable habit, once you go down that road you are forever a slave to it. It is a constant fight and such people cannot be priests.
If they have that inclination they need to stay out!!!!!
The church has been largely hamstrung by the state when it comes to helping people with same sex attraction. Anything labeled as "conversion therapy" has essentially been outlawed despite the fact that all therapy seeks to convert one from an undesirable psychological state to a desired one. It's really sad that people who genuinely want help in their struggle with same sex attraction can't even get it.
@@reinedire7872Good point
"Leather apron club" has a good video on ancient views on homosexuality.
I knew he was wrong when he said a respectable politican.
LOL!
They’re all just Greedy bastards
I would suggest watching metatron's video on this. He is a historian of classical antiquity. He puts the idea of Greek and Roman sexuality in the proper light. He also touches on the fact that it was not universally accepted and there were many rules to such an arrangement.
Priests who are even tempted or inclined or especially if they flat out desire homosexual activities is serious.
All the men who were abused by priests when they were children would agree.
It is because they are in a position of power.
They are in a position of trust. That is a dangerous combination when you add in a perverted "craving".
Sadly, that appeitite gets filfilled on the innocent and weak.
Horrible. An abomination actually.
Yes! I totally agree, and this is why men who struggle with same sex attraction should not go into the seminary
That’s an interesting thought that I hadn’t considered. After all, it’s rare that those desires appear in a vacuum.
@milkeywilkie I would suggest looking up the research on this. Homosexuality does not seem to indicate that one is more likely to abuse children.
What is your point? Hetero priests can’t abuse girls??
@@WaterCat5 Incorrect. Statistics actually show it does.
It's a mistake to take a deep-seated, permanent, abnormal desire or inclination and pretend it has nothing to do with your identity. No, it shouldn't dominate your identity, but simple acknowledgement of it need not rise to that. Since this particular action is extremely common in our time, a shorthand label for the people who experience the desire for it is inevitable. If we use it with clarity, it need not be problematic. In fact, if you want to minister to these people, you need to understand that this is part of their lives. Many will have experienced shame as they came to understand this part of themselves. Many will have experienced insult or injury from others who discover it about them. They all experience a desire that they can never legitimately fulfill. It is foolish to ignore this or pretend it doesn't matter.
underrated.
Brian, thank you so much for this take. I happen to be a man on the road towards a priestly vocation who also happens to have the SSA struggle. I thank God for my faithful family, especially my good father, as well as other good men in my life as role models and have, by God’s grace, never acted out on these desires with others. Your explanation and take are very important and need to be heard- you put clear language to how I view masculinity, integration, and vocation. God bless you.
Can you imagine being introduced to someone as a heterosexual?
That actually happened to me once, when I was driven to the birthday party of a mutual friend where the guests were majority LGBT, and was introduced as heterosexual. It was rather embarrassing, actually. Like, can't I decide whether or not I want to be checked out/leered at by a bunch of dudes? I can repel guys on my own, thank you very much.
I am a white (supremacist) , male (Patriarchal oppressor, heterosexual (Cis baby maker), Catholic (greatest oppressor of humanity). Therefore, I am the most evil person on the planet......
“Yes. Hello there. I’m NORMAL.”
Yes
😮
This is a fascinating, great nuance on this topic.
I’ve always been confused by the identity theory of sexuality as well. Orthodox monk Fr. Seraphim Rose struggled with this passion for example.
Worse still is when they find examples in the animal kingdom and use those animal behaviors to justify their behavior and desires. That too is dehumanizing. Animals also commit murder, infanticide, cannibalism, and incest. There are countless videos of aped throwing their poop at things, and even drinking their own pee. Essentially there examples of every imaginable behavior within nature, but that should not ever become the basis for human ethics or morality.
Finally theres thd twisting and distortion if what live is and is not, primarily through the awful tautology "love is love" which erases all dustinction between all loves while injecting dex and sensuality into all forms of it. It opens the door to pedophilia, dendrophilia, bestiality, incrst and everything else.
Some animals eat their own babies, so yes, saying something is okay because animals do it is ridiculous.
This is a very good discussion of a difficult topic. Modern thought is crazy at times - "Your authentic self" is not the self who strives to be its best, and improve, the theory is that it is only your worst flesh-driven self. From there it is just a small step to what you described.
Do Roman Catholic clergy have something like the Oratory of the Good Shepherd (OGS), a dispersed religious community in the Anglican Communion? It might be a good idea to have something like it. Members are bound together by a common rule and discipline, which requires consecrated celibacy. They are strengthened by prayer and fellowship; they meet regularly in chapter and retreat, and report to one another on their keeping of the rule.
The best priest I've ever had was "gay" as in he used to partake in homosexual activities and experiences same-sex attraction. Once he became catholic he gave that up and now he helps other same-sex attracted catholics to overcome temptation and find their vocation.
Every priest is capable of sexual sin, just cause their gay doesn't necessarily make that more prevalent. I'm obviously not supportive of same-sex intimacy, but I don't think we can entirely discount people's ability to be holy just because they have temptations.
This is why we need to be careful how we use our language. Saying "gay priests are bad" is incredibly confusing, what we should be saying is "Priests taking part in homosexual activities is bad".
Try to understand what context this was said!
Who said "gay priests are bad" ?
@@joan8862 I've heard that thrown around a lot lately
@bria1648 oh, I thought you were saying that Brian said it.
@@joan8862 no just some other Catholics
Brilliant perspective, Brian. You have a good point, one worth considering...it's just hard to imagine our Church openly accepting "gay", and with so much at stake in the world (above and beyond someone's sexual proclivity) that many, including myself, jump to needle-pegged conclusions before the discussion begins. We're just very polarized, as a populous. Deep breaths should prevail, and your message is nothing if not a call for a "deep breath". It's not the issue one thinks it is if we rise above it to find solutions. People are, indeed, much more than their appetites.
I really enjoy your content! I have seen other videos or content where people claim in the Biblical era, they didn't have "modern homosexual relationships". I have always suspected there was no real difference. People often think we are so different in human nature from people a couple thousand years ago.
I think there is a difference between a priest simply being gay and a priest being actively involved in a gay seksual relationship.
If the priest has committed to be celibate, unmarried, and true to the teachings of scripture then it doesn't really seem to matter what his sexuality is.
By this logic there is no such thing as a heterosexual priest.
Mmm, that's just not something there is a need to throw around all the time. There are no hetero parades, there are no hetero rights, there are no hetero months. Why? Because usually, heterosexuals don't have the need for affirmations all the time and they do not usually make everything in their life about that. And why? Because, at the end of the day, it is normative behavior. And if anyone is super aware of that, it's the LGBTQIA community first and foremost.
@@stephenson19861 i agree with most of your comment, but i think the comment you're responding too is likely referring to labels, which is a good part of what this video is about. even calling something "normative" is labeling it. we comprehend "heterosexual" because the label matches the conceptual form. while my identity is generally "normative", i do recognize i have both normal and abnormal within me and when compartmentalizing to just my sexual behaviors and inclinations, "normative" is generally an accurate method of communicating their quality or disposition. while not comprehensive of me as a total entity, it is still accurate in what it's trying to represent and not dehumanizing.
Our whole current worldview, particularly with regards to sexuality, has been seriously distorted by the virtually universal use (and expectation of use) of contraception.
The homosexual mentorship ordeal continued between priests and seminarians well through the 1900s, and it was definitely a contributing factor to the abuse crisis, especially with so many seminarians of the early 1900s never having typical teenage heterosexual relationships. It was common practice and often swept under the rug. I would not be surprised if the same sort of activity is still happening in some parts of the world.
I love your channel Brian! You’re a great man! Keep doing this work for the restoration of the Kingship of Christ! I will pray my Rosaries for you and your family!
Brian, thank you for putting into audible words what has been at work in the back of my own mind. The past 100 years, interested parties have been working to normalize certain behavior. We are at a point where we are told our carnal desires define us to our core. (Why this is being done is a conversation for another time.) It seems that some individuals have so involved themselves in this concept, to question it is to evoke a belligerent response from them. What comes to us through the "grapevine" regarding certain cliques within the community of priests indicates there are individuals who would regard the priesthood as a career path for the proclivity they pursue, disregarding any vows of obedience or chastity in serving God as a priest. The same holds true for all religious communities. What seems to be overlooked (and vilified by such proponents) is that there are those of every proclivity who take seriously the vows they make to serving God as opposed to following the dictates of usurpers of such service. The zeitgeist of the current age would have us believe everything is centered on the selfish expression of power, personal and political, and that there is neither "right" nor "wrong" in doing so (with exception of opposing this view). My most common pray is for all to be open to the providence of God, knowing that there are many who prefer the council of the whisper campaign from the Deceiver. I have heard the idea that the amount of art pieces from the ancient world depicting certain acts between "consenting adults" as proof of the open acceptance of such acts during that time. Have also come across historical information that runs counter this idea. The preservation of such art works that have been found is likely due to being stored for more private purposes as opposed to public display.
When you offer a guy a life style that includes frequent theatrical rituals, fancy luxurious clothes, full sanction for wearing dresses, a socially acceptable reason to avoid marriage, and a males-only domestic community, what do you expect to attract? I'm Catholic, by the way. And I love the Mass. But I've also known priests who say that the seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality.
Priest's vestments are not dresses. They are simply vestments worn over regular clothing. Would you call the garb of the ancient Greeks and Romans dresses?
Excellent points.The ways of the world is the substitute identity with merit/actions. Appetite is not destiny.
I always thought how dehumanizing it must be for these people to constantly feel the need to identify themselves by their sexual preference for example an adulterer , alcoholic drug addict or gossiper doesn’t identify themselves by their sinful preferences and if they did, how sad and dehumanizing that would be.
All people are made in the image and likeness of God and we all fall short of the Glory of God.
why do you creeps treat sexuality like it’s just a “sexual preference”? why do you strip away everything about our culture and our relationships and the romance and expression? we aren’t talking about sex when we say we’re lgbt but people like you only fixate on the sex. it’s gross. the way you act is gross
Good Words, Brian. I love your effort to avoid splitting hairs, and stereotypes! And the boldness with which you called some frauds! Hopefully folks will dig down deep as think some of this through. BTW, while what you described about morality in the Greco Roman world is sadly very true. So much, it shocks me. It was not common among the Jews. Which I find interesting. Especially in light of their worship of the Canaanite gods.
7:40 Every man thay has received the holy orders is a real priest, even if he has no faith and is in mortal sin. Is it healthy to have them like this? Of course not. But the sacraments we may get through them are real still and this great good is fruitful for the Church in spite of everything else.
Oh dear...oh dear....oh dear! Denial is NOT a river in Egypt as they say.🙄
Being accepting and welcoming of sin has never been a good thing in any culture at anytime. It’s always a slippery slope that leads to destruction.
I have so admired Brian's podcast for a long time and this is the first time I have found myself disagreeing with him. The gluttony analogy is way off, also. And a man with same swx attraction can legitimately be termed a homosexual. Well, there's too much to discuss in a comment but it is a very big problem, I don't care what the Roman's did, it was disordered then and still is. Yes, we love the sinner and yes, men with same sex attraction do not sin until they act on it, but the attraction itself is disordered. Please don't be an apologist for allowing men with SSA into the seminary.
You completely misunderstood his video. Rewatch with caption on so you can read it.
I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood. I'm definitely NOT condoning allowing people with such tendencies into the seminary. I'm criticizing the modern notion of identity based on one's temptations which is why the phrase "gay priest", which makes sense to the secular mind, is a misnomer.
@@BrianHoldsworthI am sorry Bryan, but lately, your videos have been very strange and you have been “defending/promoting/supporting” sinful behaviour that is totally and undoubtably against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Greeks famously engaged in homosexual activity, in europe homosexual activity is referred to as 'going Greek'. This was not considered by other europeans as you imply as in anyway 'normal'
The Romans did not condone and prohibited this kind of activity, they were however keen on crucifixion. Just because something was done in the past does not make it permissible in the present
Well there are indeed priests that identify themselves as gay. But yes, identities are a form of social constructs, I think in the context of sexuality they developed as a counter reaction to the pathologizing of certain sexual or gender orientation based on cultural values shaped by a Christian society. Celebrating pride parades then meant embracing an identity that’s viewed defective in the eyes of the general public. This recently happens with the neurodivergent movement too. A label is something that creates bonds and relation to other individuals in a collective, as me and you share a collective in the identity of being Catholic despite probably having vastly different opinions on various issues. So taking on an identity in light of discrimination can give a sense of belonging and togetherness helpful to overcome hate and rejection. Also being gay has two different connotations: one that’s an echo of the former pathologization of sexual and gender orientation and one of identity itself and when referring to „gay priests“ the former is often meant. The queer community offers a wide variety of different identities one can choose to claim or not (e.g. bi, pan, just queer etc.) despite being called „gay“ by the general public. The question in the exclusion of „gay seminarians“ is then: what’s this „deep seated homosexual tendencies“? Obviously a pathologization, unable to communicate a clear line what’s „deep seated“ and what’s not. Anyway, I would support not calling anyone gay that doesn’t identifies as gay, this certainly includes priests as well.
I agree with you 100%. The only issue is someone could say if homosexuality is an activity not an identity, then you can just as well say heterosexuality is an activity too. I don't consider myself heterosexual for engaging in said acts, I consider myself "a heterosexual" because that's my proclivity.
oh wow it’s almost like sexuality is an innate part of identity
@@notreal-duh exactly my point
Brian you're normally spot-on, but I'm going to definitely disagree with you on this one. What we have in these modern times is definitely an identity marked by a core inclination and a repetitive propensity to sin in a very specific way. And people given to these things have no slightest business near the priesthood.
Agreed
Then rewatch the video. You are imposing your own understanding and not Brian's which he communicated very clearly.
I agree... so I'm not sure what the disagreement is.
@@PaulDo22 what did he communicate so clearly? His was mostly an appeal to how things were viewed in societies of the ancient past and not looking at how things are today. In today's world, it absolutely is about identity as much as anything else.
@@donm-tv8cm See Brian's response. You are introducing arguments for the sake of argumentation that have nothing to do with what he said. Hence he agreed with your comment rather than argue.
The Catholic church should go back to including married clergy like they used to in the beginning like the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox church does.
This sounds awfully like a Motte Bailey fallacy. "a chaste priest who occasionally partakes..." is about as oxymoronic a statement as can be stated. An "in the closet glutton", while having comparable internal "paths" from committing to resistance and then succumbing to temptation in sin, has very different ramifications from other types of sin. If you steal from a man, you make restitution, but if you commit adultery, you are put to death (OT Law). While they may not be an eternal label, earthly labels may definitely be appropriate. We should always strive to keep our commitments, but not all violations are wholly equal. A priest who serially violates his commitment of chastity, and compounds it with homosexuality, is definitely not "a committed priest". This is a very bizarre take, imo. Maybe you're trying to be more subtle than it comes off, but this comes off as super wonky argumentation.
The damage done by priests with that objectively disordered inclination makes perfect sense, which is why those who have that objectively disordered inclination should not be allowed in seminaries. Hopefully, men like James Martin, SJ will repent and get the help they need instead of spreading false hope to vulnerable unbelievers. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are very clear.
Yes - around 70% in Catholic church!
James Martin is super gay.
Make a video about your thoughts on why there are so many priests with same sex attraction
I've heard that back in the 50's and 60's the church excepted homosexul ( promoted somewhat, but never officially) to join the priesthood , and if they took vow celibacy, and were sanctified this was supposed to quill their homosexual tendancys? Well we seen how well that worked.
@sitka49 it also was a position that they can make money without fear of being judged or found out which would put them at risk of loosing there job. Back then someone who was gay or was highly suspected of being gay because of tendency or if they where effeminate risked loosing there job, being denied or kicked out of housing. The priesthood was a vocation that was a higher calling that allowed gays a place to call home so they wouldn't fear loosing there housing security and a way to live without fear of not being able to make money and a life.
@@sitka49who better than a gay person to fulfill that position. They can't pursue marriage in full context and experience that straight ppl could. They are naturally prone due to the times of loosing job and housing security. They are not attracted to women so procreation is kinda out the window and if they do marry a women they would have to think about men to simply perform and they can't emotionally bond like a straight men can to women. Where else can they go to have some form of life that society prevents them from having.
The term gay refers to happy, which makes the word have a whole nother meaning.
In the ancient pagan world tje mindset was that good and bad behaviour was all part of the human nature, therefore somewhat understandable and tolerable.
Christianity came and made it explicit that we would no longer tolerate bad behaviour, it would be imoral and we dont want imorality.
It was a thing when I was a kid back in the 1960s and 1970s. Today I think it is not as much of a thing. Some priests I knew were so feminine.
Excellent analysis! Have you ever listened to the UA-camr 'Metatron'? He has done some good work analyzing and contextualizing sexuality in the ancient world.
It also makes sense when you consider the Bible. The reason why homosexual wasn't the thing is because ancient languages didn't use identity culture. There was no "gay", there were behaviors like Onanism, Sodomy, "laying with" etc.
"Gay" is a political identifier; "homosexual" is a technical one. Priests who struggle with same-sex attraction SSA are not "gay" in the political sense...unless they are frauds as you point out. Good video! Any priest who does not intend to be celibate (whatever his sexual attractions are) is not a serious priest.
It's not exposed to be a political identifier when someone is gay that says nothing political in where they lean. Most people who are gay don't even consider it a political identifier it's just a term that describes there human experience of being in a sexual minority group and who they are capable of falling in love with.
Tbh I myself am gay but this is the first I've heard someone say it's a political identifier.
@@KennyBaker-1219 I mean the word became involved in the late 60s and early 70s with homosexual rights, and "gay" became the sign of acceptance and pride. Actually, "queer" is probably the prime political terms now.
@@KennyBaker-1219 I thought the older term was "homosexual' and that "gay" was a sort of kinder, politically correct word that arose along with the homosexual rights movement in the 1970s. The opposite of heterosexual is homosexual. The opposite of "gay" is what? Sad? Melancholy?
@zzzaaayyynnn queer is more of an umbrella term usually used by people who know they are part of lgbt community but are not entirely sure or who are not completely decided on where they fit in entirely. That's my dumb downed simplified way of explaining it from pov.
"in the closet glutton" great line - stealing.
Telling people not to use the word 'gay' encourages them to hide the truth (which I would hope Christians would not be in favor of!).
If someone uses the word gay, it often just means they are attracted to the same gender, not necessarily that they plan to pursue a life based on that. Saying that using 'gay' by default defines someone's whole identity is kind of dehumanizing. Identity is made up of many different pieces. You don't know big a part of a person being gay is unless you ask them.
A priest might identify as gay, not because he has ever acted on his inclination, but because he wants the (gay) people under him to know they are not alone, and they can live God-honoring lives.
Don't shame people into hiding that they are gay, let them be open about their inclinations (the good and the bad) so they and their community can work together to honor God, knowing the truth about each other.
These are interesting insights that I’ve never heard packaged like this. I now recognize the pigeon-holing that the modern world embraces. I also wonder how many same sex attracted people are brainwashed into believing they must live every moment that way to be “ authentic “.
Gay, homosexual: attracted only to the same sex
Straight, heterosexual: attracted only to the opposite sex
Bi, bisexual: attracted to males and females.
You spent 5 minutes explaining how bisexuality was the norm in roman times but that they didn't have a word for it.
If a preist is attracted to men and only men, he is gay. It doesn't matter if he's chaste or not and the idea that a gay preist is just not something that could exist is just laughable.
Gay people don't need the Pope's approval. We could create an online seminary open to all. All the baptized share in the priesthood of Christ. This is Church doctrine.
Common sense: Following the publication of The Book of Gomorrah, Pope Leo praised Damian’s sentiments in a starkly graphic letter which reads in part: “For how may one be a cleric … if he does not fear to be soiled either by his own hands or those of another, fondling his own male parts or those of another, or fornicating with contemptible irrationality either between the thighs or in the rear?”
what's up with the vest?
There is no sin in being gay. God love all.
You desperately need to reevaluate your understanding of the Greek and Roman world and their acceptance of homosexuality. It was neither respected nor common, which may be hard to believe after years of neohistorians touting that it was based on very few documents. Recently Leather Apron Club dissects the evidence of such in both cultures and it would probably do you good to wipe some of your misconceptions clean on the subject. It’s not all wrong what you say but much of your foundations sit on falsehoods. This is only a critique of the first portion of the video, not the last.
I'm 5 minutes in. Brian never said anything about whether they saw it as good or bad, his point was about creating an identity around our appetites.
It was clearly common enough, or St. Paul would not have denounced it as something the Pagans defile themselves with.
He gave specific examples including one about a man pursuing Socrates. Unless you are saying this is a falsehood, not sure what you are arguing about.
Don’t understand your point. Depravity was always a thing, then as it is now. Only Christianity has the power to put things in order.
Even before 2 minutes Brian as uses some exemples. Even before Socrates exemple.
Maybe you disagree, mo problem. But definetly Brian as done a point about homossexuality being common place in Grece and Rome.
It's just the barf factor.
I'm sick of the entire conversation.
we suck.
Is your love and desire for your wife just an appetite, Brian? Could you transfer those same feelings to a man if you had to? If not, that is the reason why gay people largely no longer have "beards" and are simply in relationships w/those to whom they are attracted.
Not that difficult to understand.
It's kinda sad you probably needed to lead with some disclaimers otherwise they'd start thinking the algorithm was broke.
Muh greeks and romans were gay.
Stop it man. There have been people trying to fight that narrative and just flippantly calling attention to that stereotype is ridiculous.
That's the opposite of what he said. Stop seeing what you want to see and start seeing reality, woman.
Yeah, I'm disappointed that he is spewing this sort of misinformation. The content is usually solid, but this has to be the worst take I've seen.
Yea, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said that such activity wasn't uncommon, and again, the literature says as much, but that nobody would embrace it as a kind of habit of behaviour or identity anymore than they'd endorse drunkenness.
@@BrianHoldsworth”the literature” written by who exactly?
Brian, you’re wrong about this. Homosexuality was not common in ancient times like you put it. This is off base.
He didn't say that. Rewatch the video with captioning so you can read his words.
I believe a lot of the Roman army, and greek amies had lot were homosexal tendancies among the ranks which made them good fighters. In fact they had to force a lot soldiers into hedro marriages to keep the ranks up ( population). In fact in the 9th century there were monasteries closed by the vatican - because of rampant homosexuality and the practice mysticism with the monks.
@@sitka49 "source: I made it up" ok bro
I had a lot of ancient history electives back in school. that was a long time ago.
- The thing that stuck with me - considering I had a friend I went to school with that was molested by a priest. He had a lot of problems. The biggest issue he had was his parents didn't believe him. yrs later with class action lawsuit he and a few others that were molested by this same priest won.
This prompted me to read books on the old church.
But think about it, a closed community of all men, isolated, and if some of those men had homosexual tendencies' (gravitate towards) what a better place to go with possibly like minded men?
- Then from time to time a young boy that was misbehaving at home would be sent to a monastery, for discipline ( religious indoctrination/ education) - I'm sure the parents of the child didn't think that's what they meant by discipline or education? It would be like throwing chum in the water for sharks
Noted scholar, Alexander, over here. 😂😂😂😂
It is not an ontological category of being. People practice sodomy, and enter into a homosexual lifestyle. As St Paul astutely notes: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.”
I agree that our modern day society has the tendency to put labels on people based on only a small set of characteristics. Indeed, people may eventually view themselves according to these labels. However, I think that people who identify themselves as being homosexual are perfectly capable of knowing that they feel that way. In your video you talk only about sexual desires, and leave love out of the picture. It may be easy to ignore that part if you only talk about the Greek symposia, but more recent history shows us that people who are homosexual are incredibly determined to express their love. The desire to be able to marry is an example of this, and I am proud that my country, the Netherlands, was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Perhaps the Bible states that such love is not possible, but then I would say, look, listen, and love. Even though I actually find your story quite objectionable, I do think you convey it respectfully.
Love is to will the good of another, sexual desire is not intrinsically loving. To say that a man ought not lay with another man is not to diminish the love they ought to have for each other. We are called to love more, not less. Love is not diminished when it's not sexual.
Pope Francis recognizes that gay priest exists. Wow you think you are more Holy than the Pope
🕊️Ten reasons why matrimony itself proves that homosexuality is in fact a sin:
1. What did our Father say in reference to matrimony?
* ”Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
2. Did Jesus reaffirm our Father’s view on matrimony?
* ”He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?” Matthew 19:4-5
3. Did the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles reaffirm our Father’ & Jesus’ view on matrimony?
* “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Ephesians 5:31
4. Is Jesus’ example of love separate from an individual’s immorality?
* ”And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints.” Ephesians 5:2-3
5. Do the works of the flesh pertain to immorality?
* “Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,” Galatians 5:19
6. How does immorality pertain to sex specifically?
* “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathens who do not know God;” 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
7. Why should we avoid immorality?
* ”Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18
8. Under what condition is immorality permitted?
* ”But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:2
9. Is immorality outside of matrimony idolatry?
* ”Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Colossians 3:5
10. Were we warned about certain people who would gain admission to our Father’s church and pervert the grace of our Father into licentiousness?
* “Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the deepest darkness until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.” Jude 1:3-8
In conclusion to homosexuality, not only can we conclude that our Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles clarify matrimony between heterosexuals but further stated that immorality was only permitted through heterosexual matrimony. If immorality is only acceptable between heterosexuals then by default, immorality & matrimony between homosexuals is not only sinful but contradicts our Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles.
Even though we know more now about sexual orientations, who will dare claim our Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit who spoke through the Apostles knew less if they know past, present and future?
Why not repeat the Pope’s words? He’s your spiritual leader, no? And wouldn’t your audience benefit from hearing those words and evaluating their merit?
Just because the Pope uses bad language (the use of an offensive swear word, twice, when referring to homosexuals is not, sadly, an isolated incident, he is reported to shout and swear at his officials regularly, in private) does not mean that a Christian should ever use bad language.
Priests are celebrate so having such a question is stupid.
Your description of attitudes to homosexual activity in the ancient world are absolutely echoed in the modern world…to some extent. American politicians visiting African countries and lecturing Africans about “gay pride” are clearly greeted with blank stares or some anger. Because most Africans are believing Christians who simply see homosexual activity as a mucky “sin”… that you shouldn’t commit and if you do, ask for gods forgiveness. The idea that the state under American “guidance” should simply cancel the sin and celebrate it instead with parades and queer flags and the invention of a new type of human for whom the sin IS their “identity” helps Africans to see the US as the centre of degeneracy in the world. Are they wrong in that view?
I usually agree with you. No need to confuse this topic which you seem to do. I spent several years in a major seminary. The fact is that there is an inordinate amount of gay men who are seminarians and ordained priests in the Church. It seemed like many were also active. From what has occurred in the Church over the last several decades it seems to me that gay men in general probably should not be ordained. I believe JPII said they should not. Also your depiction of gay activity in the ancient world as the norm between guys is absolutely not true. Did some of the upper class the one percenters engage in this, yep. It was not considered normal by the populous in the ancient world.
The very personification of, "there is no hate like Christian love."
Correction: "There's no greater hate than Satanic love of sin."
@@philalcoceli6328
Well send is a myth, and I don't know what he Satanists personally
But your correction is summarily dismissed because your religion is nothing but hate.
So, run along, scooter, and stop bothering your betters
@@keithziegler8881 Your comment oozes hate. You're no one's better. You can't string a sentence together.
suggestion - turn on your superthanks to make it easy to leave a tip
Permit me to suggest Leather Apron Club who has completed in-depth research into claims that sodomy was de rigueur in Greco-Roman society. In hoc signo vinces +.
I agree with you .. does anyone ever read the Holy Christian Bible ??
So ancients wouldn’t have considered themselves gay? It’s almost like ideas and knowledge change and develop over time. Try explaining germs to the ancient peoples lol
But if he suppose not to implement his sexuality with woman or man how you can know he is homosexual?
Well that's exactly the core question. Does the mere fact that a man is attracted to other men mean that he is to the core of being a "homosexual" and that is a key part of his identity? Modern society would say yes, but I think the true answer is no. We are more so the sum of our choices than the sum of our base inclinations.
The ancient Romans were not particularly nice people. Unwanted babies were just taken out to a remote location and left to die. No Christian should look to the ancient Greeks or Romans as examples of how to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus. We should look to the Jews - not perfect, of course - King David was an adulterer and a murderer, however, he did listen when he was rebuked by the Prophet for his sin and he did repent. Someone summarised the ancient Romans “so clever, so cultivated - but what brutes”.
Love 😌🥰 Though it would have been cool to get your harmonica in the mix. 🙏
This is a no brainer. The devil,satan will always tempt,always,always. To fall into the temptation is to fill another seat in HELL!! The LOVE of the lord is what my soul yearns for most. NOT sinful temptation.
You are correct. Saying someone 'IS gay' is a misnomer. Homosexuality is not something you are, it is something you do. And whereas 'temptation is not a sin', desiring any immoral sexual pleasure in your heart, like adultery, means you have sinned.
Speaking as a gay person, the Catholic position that being gay is A CHOICE is completely wrong!
I am 88 years of age and, being gay, I know the territory!
I lived a big part of my life in complete denial and have come to realize that one cannot escape their orientation!
Married for 18 years, four children, and due to a patient and loving wife, I was able to survive the marriage despite my orientation.
Eventually, reality set in and the marriage broke up!
Catholicism needs to be closer to Jesus and more detached from a bible-based orientation to be a reality-based religion!!!
That’s not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching doesnt teach that your attractions are a choice
@@mx_moi1964
Sorry! To be told what I think is not Catholic teaching, you need to know that I am not a Catholic and couldn't care less what the church thinks!
Science is more intelligent than a Middle Ages church (circa 1500) that feels that modernization (science) is somehow evil.
God damn - gays are human beings and are children of God.
Sexual attraction is scientifically true to all human beings and to moralize this is wrong!
God gave us our attractions and only He can explain why this is true!
I think it might be good for you (and everyone really) to watch Leather Apron Club's videos about homosexuality in Greece and Rome.
I stopped listening at the 1:30 when he talked about Ancient Greece homosexual-pederasty (man-boy sex) as a good time in history.
He was NOT complementing them on it, he was just demonstrating that the modern conception of "homosexuality" as a core feature of a person's identity is a new invention and that even a culture that was rampant with sodomy (like ancient Greece) did not consider "homosexuality" to be intrinsic to a person's identity.
For the best then because you don't have the mental acuity to understand issues.
This video was pretty weird. I think I get what your saying but i dont think it came across well.
I know gay priests brother's most are in the closet however outside their religious roll THEIR are a lot more gay priests brother's than you know
Il y a beaucoup à dire. On va attendre le retour du Christ Yeshua pour tout remettre à l'endroit bien comme il faut.
I didnt hear any scripture in your video , you said a lot big words but nothing concrete and straightforward. Just my opinion. God bless.
My wife thinks I identify as a chocolate chip cookie.
Pope Benedict seemed to mellow out as he approached 90 but Pope Francis is the opposite
Lowest of the low.
How low can our Church go?
Thank GOD for the Holy Bible :
our Sanctuary, our Refuge.
When even holy people lose their heads,
the Teachings of the Lord are Rock-Solid.
Read and re-read your 4 Gospels
if you want food for thought, children of Yeshua.
Our Father, Commander Supreme Jesus the Messiah be Exalted and Praised.
AMEN.
n general, are these types capable of providing the faithful proper fatherly guidance? Also consider the modern day leftist ideologies associated with disordered passions, as well as the effect that can have on young boys who want to serve or are considering their vocations.