Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Best friends of the gays: Catholics and men

Charles Blow over at the New York Times reminded me of something I totally forgot to write about last week. In his Saturday column, "Whatever, Dude," Blow writes about the new Gallup poll on American attitudes on homosexuality. They are improving in stunning and dramatic ways.

For the first time, a majority of Americans (52 percent) view gay and lesbian relationships as morally acceptable. Men (53 percent) are more accepting than women (51 percent). Young men and women, ages 18 to 49, are especially okay with such relationships, 62 percent and 59 percent, respectively. Hence, "whatever, dude." But the statistic that jumped out at me was the view of Catholics.

While the Catholic Church fights any and all efforts to recognize gay and lesbian relationships (the battle between the District and the archdiocese over same-sex marriage comes to mind), its flock is overwhelmingly supportive. In May 2006, just 46 percent thought those relationships were "morally acceptable." Four years later, a whopping 62 percent shared that view. That 16-point jump is 10 points greater than the jump among Protestants (6) and "other non-Christian (7). What's also interesting is that Catholics' growing acceptance of homosexual relationships is greater than that of Protestants. In May 2006, there was a 10-point gap (36 percent for Protestants and 46 percent for Catholics). Today, the gap is 20 percent.

So, the evolving views of Catholics and men are leading the way to greater acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships. Wonders never cease.

By Jonathan Capehart  | June 7, 2010; 6:30 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Juvenile justice reform' -- or a clear-and-present threat?
Next: Rep. Charlie Rangel's run for redemption

Comments

What Catholics were polled?? I wasn't, the propaganda by these gays and their proponents is laughable. If these so called Catholics accept homosexual relationships as morally "acceptable", there are NO LONGER Catholics, but in name only DUH, GET A GRIP Capehart. And anyone smart enough won't fall for your propaganda and so called polls. Most intelligent, well read, and educated people know polls are twisted to suite whatever agenda, and in this case Capehart is trying to suit the gay agenda. Most Catholics I know find the homosexual lifestyle MORALLY REPUGNANT, and UNACCEPTABLE. The Vatican won't change for these so called Catholics who find homos morally acceptable, so they can the Roman Catholic church and go to the oh so welcome protestant churches. Nice try Capehart, but your PROPAGANDA, JUST AIN'T WORKING ON ME, AND IT WON'T WORK ON TRUE CATHOLICS EITHER WHO FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

What Catholics were polled?? I wasn't, the propaganda by these gays and their proponents is laughable. If these so called Catholics accept homosexual relationships as morally "acceptable", there are NO LONGER Catholics, but in name only DUH, GET A GRIP Capehart. And anyone smart enough won't fall for your propaganda and so called polls. Most intelligent, well read, and educated people know polls are twisted to suite whatever agenda, and in this case Capehart is trying to suit the gay agenda. Most Catholics I know find the homosexual lifestyle MORALLY REPUGNANT, and UNACCEPTABLE. The Vatican won't change for these so called Catholics who find homos morally acceptable, so they can leave the Roman Catholic church and go to the oh so welcome protestant churches. Let the FAKE Catholics go embrace homosexuality in the protestant churches where homos are allowed to "marry",that is indeed seperating the wheat from the chaff. Nice try Capehart, but your PROPAGANDA, JUST AIN'T WORKING ON ME, AND IT WON'T WORK ON TRUE CATHOLICS EITHER WHO FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

You've got to be kidding me. The Post actually considers you a serious journalist? One poll, and it's not even cited as to who did the poll, how many people were polled, were they asked if they were practicing Catholics, etc. I can't fathom how you have your job, but it's certainly not because of your skill as a journalist. "So, the evolving views of Catholics and men are leading the way to greater acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships. Wonders never cease." Wow, that's amazing that you were able to come to that conclusion based on what you wrote!

Posted by: tegillman | June 7, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Shouldn't that be 'Catholics and Little Boys'? Of course Catholics like Gays. All the Priests are GAY.
Speaking of Gay. The one name thing. Capehart. Is that what gays do? They go by one name? That's so uncreative. I thought you guys were clever? How about: Deep Throat? Like the Watergate guy. Yeah. Deep Throat.
Idiot.

Posted by: GoomyGommy | June 7, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Hallelujah!

Posted by: emchughnyc | June 7, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

What an IDIOT this guy is. He thinks that we're all so STUPID. "POST PARTISAN"? Ah, the LEFT. He must mean like our POST PARTISAN President. Cause everyone knows how Post Partisan he is. See how he's brought us all TOGETHER? And he's POST RACIAL. Unless you happen to be a Typical White Person. Or a STUPID WHITE COP. I know that if you happen to be a BLACK PANTHER, then things are good. You can be CONVICTED IN COURT of VOTING RIGHTS ACT violations, and CIVIL RIGHTS violations, and get a GET OUTTA JAIL FREE CARD. It doesn't matter that there's a VIDEO of your Black Face, out there in front of the Polling Place, dressed in MILITARY FATIGUES and BRANDISHING A WEAPON. This BLACK President will have his BLACK Attorney General, let your BLACK *SS walk. Why? Because there's "NO EVIDENCE". In the mind of our POST RACIAL President, a VIDEO is NOT sufficient evidence, when it implicates one of his BLACK BUDDIES.
Capeesh?
The only thing 'POST' about this Muslim in the White House, is that he's POST AMERICAN.
And CAPEHART is just POST WOMEN. Isn't that right, sweetheart? Or is it - Sweethart?
Idiot.

Posted by: GoomyGommy | June 7, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I am a practicing Catholic. The catholic church has so many problems of its own that they better stick to religion first and try to fix our broken system.
Our religion is not broken it is the people running it that are ruining it.
Priests that left the church because they wanted to marry should be invited back in as priests. Like the Greek church. If a priest marrys he goes no further than a Parish priest. Which is fine with the Greek priests I know.
Homosexuals should be allowed to live their life without any interference from anyone.
But i do not agree with "we will stick our sexuality" in your face, like it or not.
Hopefully the pro and con people can someday come to terms with each other.

Posted by: albacore13a | June 7, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Gays are allowed in the Priesthood but are a minority just like they are in society as a whole; but everyone in the Priesthood vows to be chaste. To say Catholics love or support a gay lifestyle is foolish, in the least.

Gay Protestants are in the majority including some preachers; only they don't enjoy such headline space in anti Catholic National News papers.

Posted by: ddoiron1 | June 7, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Of course the church is against homosexuality: it infringes upon the perogatives of priests & bishops.

Posted by: spike591011 | June 7, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Catholic, hetero, married & middle class here. No problem from the moral perspective with homosexuality, nor even with homosexuals themselves (I work with a few and have two good friends). But the thought of what they do is just downright icky.

Posted by: Ralphinjersey | June 7, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia........

The Catholic Church has a homosexual problem where perverts use the Church to access young boys.......

Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...

So, pretending a "gay" is just fine is as accurate as asserting any mental illness is a new normal.......

Posted by: georgedixon | June 7, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

@Ralphinjersey: Trust me, most homosexuals I know think that what heteros do is kinda icky too. The solution: stop fixating on what other people (gay or straight) do in the bedroom.

Posted by: dlcindc | June 7, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"Wonders never cease." .. and Amen to that! Those who value faith in God are realizing the value of Jesus' call to "love one another" in a world filled with strife.

Posted by: paris1969 | June 7, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I see from the negative comments here we have a lot of folks dealing with fear of their own homosexuality.
These poll results are not surprising and reflect the trend in national polls. The catholic church has always been a little slow. They will eventually allow priests to marry and women to become priests; all long before they face the reality that the rest of the world will have about GLBT families.
When it comes to sexuality, we still have a lot of flat-earthers; all in good time.

Posted by: streff | June 7, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

"Priests that left the church because they wanted to marry should be invited back in as priests. Like the Greek church. If a priest marries he goes no further than a Parish priest. Which is fine with the Greek priests I know."

I thought that was strictly practiced by the Eastern Orthodox churches. Feel free to correct me, but if a church recognizes the Pope as the Holy See, then they have no priests who are married. In the Eastern Orthodox, a parish priest can be married, but cannot go any higher in the hierarchy.

At least, that's how I understand it.

Posted by: Skowronek | June 7, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I was not put here to judge anyone or their relationships. I do, however, acknowledge what the Bible says about "men laying with men" and take it to be truth. Again, I cannot judge anyone, for we'll all pay for our own sins in the end. To that end, may we all be forgiven.

Posted by: massmedia77 | June 7, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I certainly doubt the poll since it does not speak of the category nor the age group of those polled. There is no true believer that does not believe in creation. It is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. Gayism is not about creation but simply put "LUST". A man or woman that practises "gayism" is simply hedonistic, whose aim is pleasure without life. You don't join issues with the merchant of death. Read your book STU!!!

Posted by: kabirilyasu | June 7, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

There is no doubt of the trend of increasing acceptance for homosexuality in our culture. Bigotry against homosexuals will follow the same pattern as bigotry against blacks. The people shouting at the top of their lungs that one demographic group should be treated differently than another will be quietly swept under the historical rug by their humiliated descendants. It is a foregone conclusion.

Shouts to the contrary are born of frustration - the death-throes of a discounted and morally objectionable idiocy.

Posted by: kuato | June 7, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

The moronic catholic church still thinks it's the middle ages.... who cares what these hypocrites think? All they want is money....

Posted by: EdSantaFe | June 7, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It ain't left, it ain't right. It's hate or decency.

Posted by: joshlct | June 7, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

You are correct! Morality in America is at an all time low and seems to be getting worse in the ObamaNation. Many Americans are now willing to let perversion show its ugly head in public.

Is it real or is it liberal smoke 'n' mirrors?? Only time will tell.

These are times that try good mens souls.

Posted by: battleground51 | June 7, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

It seems that, in the past, when societies have accepted sexual deviency and made obvious perversion part of the norm, bad things eventually began happening to those societies. It has never turned out positive. Never.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are surely doomed to repeat it.

It's going to be like a very bad, summer rerun.

Posted by: battleground51 | June 7, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

With a million children being raised by a gay parent, punishing them for the "sins" of the parent is one factor. The KS Phelps church violating the funeral of a returning hero not only has KS passing laws to stop it, but has the terrible circuit court ruling coming before SCOTUS which will determine whether a right to privacy exists in the Constitution (Roberts believes it exists Alito not), also has changed opinion. The gay community being more affluent, having less criminals, fighting for equal rights for everyone has also helped. I for one believe the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment will end the religious bias against the gay community. While I oppose keeping people in the closet, I don't think open displays of sexuality are proper by gays nor heterosexuals.

Posted by: jameschirico | June 7, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

More sop from the morally and mentally challenged left.

Posted by: DQuixote1 | June 7, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Pretty much anything went before the fall of Rome.......

Posted by: FLvet | June 7, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I see from the negative comments here we have a lot of folks dealing with fear of their own homosexuality.
These poll results are not surprising and reflect the trend in national polls. The catholic church has always been a little slow. They will eventually allow priests to marry and women to become priests; all long before they face the reality that the rest of the world will have about GLBT families.
When it comes to sexuality, we still have a lot of flat-earthers; all in good time.
--------
THAT'S MORE PROPAGANDA YOU POOR ABNORMAL AND MENTALLY UNSTABLE GAYS WOULD WANT THE WHOLE POPULATION OF THE GLOBE TO BE HOMO SO THEN YOU WON'T STAND OUT AS ABNORMAL,AND YOUR LIFESTLE WON'T STAND OUT AS UNNATURAL, WELL TO BAD FOR YOU THE REALITY IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S OVER 6 BILLION PEOPLE IS HETEROSEXUAL, AND I GUESS ACCORDING TO THE MENTALLY UNBALANCED DESPERATE VIEWS OF ALL THE HOMOS AND THEIR PROPONENTS, ALL THE WORLD'S POPULATION OF OVER 6 BILLION IS DEALING WITH UNDERLYING HOMOSEXUAL TENDECIES, THAT IS REALLY SICK AND MENTALLY UNBALANCED JUST LIKE YOUR HOMO LIFESTYLE IS.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Why must people always post their rants multiple times, under different names? (Hint to same: If you want to hoodwink the rest of us into thinking you are an entire herd of like-minded folks, at least go for some stylistic variation....)

Posted by: Itzajob | June 7, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow, quite a bit of Hatred here today. For those who talk about the Bible's insistance aagainst "men laying with men", where is your defense of:
*Slavery, "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." (Exodus 21:7)
*Sexual obediance, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Lev21:9)
*Not eating shellfish, ""And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." (Lev11:10)
*Cutting your beard, "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." (Lev 19:27)
*Mixing cloths in garments, "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (Deut 22:11)
*Animal sacrafice, "The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp." (Heb 13:11)

I point these out, not to make fun of the Bible, but to show that these codes may have seemed righteous at the time 2500 yers ago, but not today. You can not quote the Bible on homosexuality without tacidly agreeing to all other old testimant laws of the bible. To do so, shows that you are cherry picking those items that agree with your PERSONAL sense of morality. You can either say the bible is unerring and if so, them tell us how you live your life in respnse to all old testiment guidelines, OR admit the bible was written by men to celebrate their culture and set laws that were applicable to them in their time and place. Cultural needs and laws change.

Posted by: cadam72 | June 7, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I can't for the life of me understand how Catholics can bash gays and then hide homosexual child molesters among their clergy.

It's like saying one is Pro-Life and then supporting capital punishment and pre-emptive war.

May god bless you hypocritical disciples of Donohue with a gay child or grandchild. It worked for the old, closed minded Lord Cheney so there's hope for you, too.

Posted by: areyousaying | June 7, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

you gotta love the delusion of those who cherry-pick their scriptures to make their point while automatically assuming all others accept these old Abrahamic fairy tales as infallible as well.

Posted by: areyousaying | June 7, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow, quite a bit of Hatred here today. For those who talk about the Bible's insistance aagainst "men laying with men", where is your defense of:
*Slavery, "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." (Exodus 21:7)
*Sexual obediance, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Lev21:9)
*Not eating shellfish, ""And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." (Lev11:10)
*Cutting your beard, "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." (Lev 19:27)
*Mixing cloths in garments, "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (Deut 22:11)
*Animal sacrafice, "The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp." (Heb 13:11)

I point these out, not to make fun of the Bible, but to show that these codes may have seemed righteous at the time 2500 yers ago, but not today. You can not quote the Bible on homosexuality without tacidly agreeing to all other old testimant laws of the bible. To do so, shows that you are cherry picking those items that agree with your PERSONAL sense of morality. You can either say the bible is unerring and if so, them tell us how you live your life in respnse to all old testiment guidelines, OR admit the bible was written by men to celebrate their culture and set laws that were applicable to them in their time and place. Cultural needs and laws change.
-------------
The Bible can't be read like you are reading a comic book or something such as "unbiased and as objective" as the Washington Post and other such liberal and "progressive" newspapers and other media, that is why there have been biblical scholars all through the ages, if you really want to understand the Bible then go do some Bible Study, and yes it is called Bible STUDY, you have to STUDY it to understand it, unlike a superman comic book and the oh so "great" Washington Post and other such trifling media.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow, quite a bit of Hatred here today. For those who talk about the Bible's insistance aagainst "men laying with men", where is your defense of:
*Slavery, "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." (Exodus 21:7)
*Sexual obediance, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Lev21:9)
*Not eating shellfish, ""And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." (Lev11:10)
*Cutting your beard, "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." (Lev 19:27)
*Mixing cloths in garments, "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (Deut 22:11)
*Animal sacrafice, "The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp." (Heb 13:11)

I point these out, not to make fun of the Bible, but to show that these codes may have seemed righteous at the time 2500 yers ago, but not today. You can not quote the Bible on homosexuality without tacidly agreeing to all other old testimant laws of the bible. To do so, shows that you are cherry picking those items that agree with your PERSONAL sense of morality. You can either say the bible is unerring and if so, them tell us how you live your life in respnse to all old testiment guidelines, OR admit the bible was written by men to celebrate their culture and set laws that were applicable to them in their time and place. Cultural needs and laws change.
---------
Reading the Bible is not like reading a comic book or the oh so “unbiased and objective” liberal and “progressive” washington post, that is why there have been Biblical Scholars all through the ages. If you want to fully understand the bible then you should go to Bible Study to fully understand it instead of reading it and understanding it at face value. One has to STUDY the Bible to get to understand it, unlike reading a Superman comic book, or the ever or so “great unbiased and objective” Washington post and other such trifling media.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

@Ralphinjersey - That's totally fine. I find heterosexual sex somewhat icky myself. It's cool, you being married and all though. I just try not to think about what y'all do with your bits and pieces, I can only hope you'll give us the same courtesy.

Posted by: jove4015 | June 7, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@FLvet: Not so. Homosexuality was banned first, and then Rome fell. When everything "went", things were fine - it's when they started banning things that the empire fell.

Posted by: jove4015 | June 7, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Um...Tegillman? To find out who did the poll, how many were surveyed, etc....you know the things you want to know? There is this trick called "clicking on the link" in the article, and you can find out all that information.

Posted by: Mark_Rom | June 7, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

@FLvet: Not so. Homosexuality was banned first, and then Rome fell. When everything "went", things were fine - it's when they started banning things that the empire fell.
-----
Wow these gays will stop at nothing even selling thier mothers to promote their ABNORNAL AND UNNATURAL LIFESTYLE. The mothers who brought them into this world with her egg fusing with their father's sperm, since a sperm and a sperm can't make a baby and neither can an egg and an egg. Only dumb, uneducated and not well read people will fall for the LIES the homos and their proponents are SPEWING AS PROPAGANDA. The gays and their proponents are banking on that. Homosexuality WAS NEVER BANNED IN the ROMIRE EMPIRE, and that is why IT FELL. Now they even want to change historical events and facts, DESPERATE IS, AS DESPERATE DOES.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

nakiberu,

Did you acquire all that hatred on your own or did you have some help along the way?

Posted by: francis4 | June 7, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan, don't get too worked up over the upswing in Catholics' view of gays. I mean, to each their own, right? They probably feel like if they can accept the gay lifestyle, maybe others will accept the Catholic clergy pedophilia. So, I think what this all suggests is Catholics are getting off their high horse and realizing they have no better idea on leading a moral life than anyone else. It's about time if you ask me. I'd take a gay neighbor anyday over a Catholic priest (yuck)!!!

Posted by: sachancp | June 7, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

In response to even more falsehood that has been posted here, I will point out that the Lex Scantinia, introduced in Rome in 149 BC, was a law that regulated all sorts of sexual activity, including aspects of gay sex. It is incorrect to say that it “outlawed homosexuality”, though it certainly outlawed it between free-born men. Sex with slaves was permitted, but even so, the law was poorly enforced among non-slaves. This law pre-dated Christianity by over 150 years, and it was still on the books when Christianity became a majority religion.

A total ban on homosexuality was instituted by the Christian emperor Justinian I in the mid-500s, around the time the city of Rome was sacked by the Gothic king, Totila (AD 546).

As these two examples show, sexual laws were around at the beginning and at the end of the empire—and all the way in between. Sometimes they were enforced, sometimes ignored. But to blame the “fall of Rome” on some wild story of crazed gay orgies and virgin sacrifices is simply ignorant. In fact, the gradual disintegration of the Roman Empire follows right along with the gradual growth of Christianity.

I really do wish people would read. You can find the actual Roman laws and read them yourselves. You can read Augustine’s City of God to see what he thought about the beginning of the end of Rome. All kinds of material like that is available in English, much of it online. You could also read some things that gay people have written, about their lives and their experiences.

And here’s a really crazy idea: you could even read the Bible. And I mean actually read it, whole sections at a time, not just a few sentences that prove your point, like the recipe for fruitcake you get when arrange the verses a certain way. (Look up “Scripture Cake” if you don’t believe me on this one.) Read the parts about Lot’s daughters having sex with him to get pregnant, or about Tamar dressing up as a hooker to have sex with her father-in-law. That stuff. You could also read the actual parts about Jesus, where he said to feed the poor and hungry—crazy stuff like that.

But please, read something. What I see on these posts is a disturbing gauge of human ignorance, and it does not bode well for our future as a people.

Posted by: mikael3 | June 7, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Although it is only a figure of speech, I must "beg to differ", nakiberu: the Bible would be the greatest comic book ever written, BUT FOR the fact that its hate-filled, misogynistic fairy tales and superstitious fantasies (along with those from the other Abrahamic religions) are responsible for most of the hate, violence and death in the history of mankind.

Posted by: Orsalia | June 7, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Although it is only a figure of speech, I must "beg to differ", nakiberu: the Bible would be the greatest comic book ever written, BUT FOR the fact that its hate-filled, misogynistic fairy tales and superstitious fantasies (along with those from the other Abrahamic religions) are responsible for most of the hate, violence and death in the history of mankind.

Posted by: Orsalia | June 7, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I’d like to clear up several points of confusion that pop up over and over and over in WAPO articles and posts.

First, Orthodox men who want to be priests have to marry BEFORE ordination. If they marry after, they have to leave the priesthood. This is an ancient understanding of the rule, and it should theoretically apply within the Catholic Church—if they were ever to allow a married priesthood. In other words, if the rules were to change, future priests could be married, but current ones would could not.

Second, to be an Orthodox bishop, a man has to be “chaste”. At least in theory, he could remain married and live separately from his wife. This hasn’t happened in modern times that I know of, but the Orthodox Church does have many bishops who are widowers.

Third, the Catholic Church has allowed married priests in Eastern Rite churches in many Eastern European countries for several hundred years. This was a pastoral concern in areas with a majority or a large minority of Orthodox, where a seminarian might make a switch if he wanted both a wife and a parish. However, during the communist upheavals of the 20th century, many of these married priests came to the US along with other refugees, and their presence caused a scandal in many communities. The Ruthenian Church of St. Mary in Manhattan was one such parish, where the Catholic priest had a wife and several children in the 1930s.

Fourth, the prohibition in Leviticus, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman”, is a tricky rule, physically speaking, since two men can’t actually do what a man and woman can do sexually. For Christians, this is understood as a blanket condemnation of gay people, which is actually not what the text says. However, among many Jewish people, this is often taken more narrowly as a prohibition against certain sexual activities, not a prohibition about being gay or even living in a gay relationship. Not all Jews agree, of course, and there is a history in Jewish scholarship of condemning gay people. But at least get this part right: Leviticus condemns a specific action, not a state of being.

Posted by: johnh1054 | June 7, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Capehart: We know you gay, but why on earth would you say "Catholics"?

You must be saying that because some of the gay priests.

The fact is, it's a sin to be gay if you're a Catholic, but a whole lot of things are a sin if you're a Catholic.

Just don't try to make it seem as though Catholics approve of it, because it is NOT accepted.

Further, I really really can't understand WHY gays are always trying to be "accepted" by somebody.

I would accept it only if you could keep it to yourself, and out of my face.

I really cannot appreciate having to approve of you taking it in the a.s.s. anymore than I'd seek your approval of how anybody else chooses to do what they do.


Posted by: lindalovejones | June 7, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Fifth, Christian arguments against homosexuality are ultimately based on an enormous pile of Christian polemic plus 3 half-sentences from the New Testament. The polemic is specifically “anti-gay”, and there’s no need wasting time pretending it’s not. Biblical scholarship has shown that the quotes from the New Testament are not exactly “anti-gay”. But all Christian groups make base the religion on traditional understandings of the Bible, not on what the Bible actually says. Accepting that is key to understanding Christianity as a whole.

Sixth, there is no society that has ever collapsed after “accepting sexual deviancy”. This is just a little story people make up when they are angry that their opinions are rejected by the majority, and they desperately want to see the people who disagree with them physically harmed or killed. It’s a sad little place to be, but many people find themselves there. So, would all future posters who make this claim please follow up with examples?

And do not mention Rome, which was sacked in AD 410, AFTER much of the empire had accepted Christianity and Christianity had become the Empire’s official religion (in AD 380) and after the government had implemented more and more Christian-biased laws. Rome was full of Christian churches at the time. St. Jerome (who worked on numerous revisions and direct translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures into contemporary Latin) and St. Augustine (who wrote The City of God in reaction to what happened) were famous Christian leaders at the time. When I think of widespread sexual perversion, these are hardly the two names that come to mind. Based on this, I’m surprised that more people don’t claim that Christianity caused the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Posted by: johnh1054 | June 7, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Finally, with regard to this particular article, I really wonder what the influence of Hispanic Catholics is on attitudes toward gay people among Catholics. Despite the reputation of machismo in Mexico, there is a built-in assumption in Mexican society that a certain number of the men in town are gay, and they are open to relationships with “unhappily married men”, who might be straight or might be closeted gay men. In some ways, this is good for gays in Mexico, in the sense that they have a “place” in society; it’s bad because that place is not one of dignity. However, this cultural difference is important to understanding when discussing homosexuality in Mexico.

By the way, this reality and many others of Mexican society are lost on almost every reporter and poster to WAPO. Please, get some Mexican friends before you write about Mexicans.

Finally, I’m gay, I’m an Orthodox Christian, and I’ve been with my Mexican fiancé for 15 years, waiting till we can legally get married.

Sadly, this little post will disappear within a week and I will go back to reading the same, old misrepresentations and falsehoods, but I am saving this post to re-use at a future date, when I once again can’t take the ignorance any more. In the meantime, please: read, learn, then read some more. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted by: johnh1054 | June 7, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Married Catholic Priests - Skowronek. The RCC invites married episcopal priests to become married Roman Catholic priests. To my knowledge, that has always been the case. It has been codified by JPII. See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
If the married Episcopalian minister were ordained as a Catholic priest, he would be exempt by a special favor from the Holy Father of making the promise of celibacy; however, if he later became a widower, then he would be bound to a celibate lifestyle and could not remarry.

The Eastern Rite has married priests too.

Posted by: marcluxjd | June 7, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Spin the poll whatever way you want but here is a better headline for your article: At least 62% of Catholics have doomed themselves to Hell. How's that for a headline? The Catholic Church teaches the biblical principle that homosexual acts are sinful, is very clear on this. To this day the RCC is the only Christian Faith that still teaches the biblical principal that contraception is a sin. Our society has turned marriage away from its sacramental purpose to create new life as a blessing from God into a business partnership. So why is it surprising that secularist, even ignorant Catholics who've sold their sole to moral relativism, support gay marriage? If were going to allow gays to marry why not allow polygamy? By your own rules who are you to tell them what they can do if they want to have more than one wife. Go ahead and let adults marry children or even animals. My, what the road of moral relativism leads us to.

Posted by: scwhitson | June 7, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

nakiberu,

Did you acquire all that hatred on your own or did you have some help along the way?
----------
hatred, hate, blah, blah, another thing gays and their ppponenets are good at is trying to redefine words to affirm the the UNATURAL and ABNORMAL homo lifestyle, y'all are so boring, you hate me because you don't approve of my homo lifestyle, wah, wah, you hate me boohoo, wah, wah where is my rattle and pacifer, anyone who doesn't embrace the homo lifestyle if full of hate, wah, wah! SO BORING AND SICKENING!!!

Posted by: nakiberu | June 7, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey massmedia77, you wrote: "I was not put here to judge anyone or their relationships. I do, however, acknowledge what the Bible says about "men laying with men" and take it to be truth. "
Do you also acknowledge that the Bible says you should not wear cloth of mixed origin, i.e. 50% polyester/50% cotton? (punishable by stoning to death). It's in there also. Don't forget not to eat shellfish also, that is also prohibited.

Posted by: kashe | June 10, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company