Leopard, spots: Pope condemns "fashionable" homosexuality among clergy


Gay clergy were urged to be “impeccably responsible” in a warning over bad behaviour that was notable for its silence on heterosexual clergy who break their vow of celibacy.



What about pedophilia?

Has he said that he’ll stop actively housing pedophiles safely from the law in his literal gilded castle?


I’ve not read the book, but my inference from the GuardianAgence France-Presse’s article is that the topic is not addressed.


The old chestnut of scapegoating LGBT people for pedophilia.

That venomous shit-heel can go fuck himself and the Popemobile he rode in on.


That was my first thought. You see it all the time in the evangelical communities.

“I’d never let my kids be taught by a gay man in school” that kind of bullshit.


That’s also down to the fear that their kids may catch TEH GAY. Like that nonsense with section 28 back in the eighties. The evil gays* are never going to “convert” a bunch of horny straight 16 year-olds, and the forces of righteousness* are never going to “convert” horny gay ones; the most the legislation would do, and which I don’t doubt was the intention, is to force the gay ones to closet themselves, and the bisexual/bi-curious ones to repress and deny a side of themselves.

* If it has to be said, /s implied.


Don’t forget legitimising the bullying of LGBT+ people. I still can’t forgive the Tories for section 28. It wasn’t because times were different back then, they could see the way Britain was going. It was because they were sadistic authoritarian bastards who wanted to gain a victory against the left for their reactionary supporters.


Bloody hell, Francis. Of all the issues to pick, you chose this one? The day after World Aids Day. I haz a disappoint.


The “no sex with women” rule is a big turnoff for a majority of heteronormative men who might otherwise consider the priesthood. For everyone else it’s literally “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”


“People choose to be gay because it’s fashionable” is one of the oldest, dumbest write-offs of LGBT people. Yeah, that’s why they’re attracted to the same sex and deal with a lifetime of stigma, condemnation, and hatred: because it’s cool.


The thing is, the Catholic Church does have married priests. For starters, there are former Anglican/Episcopalian priests who converted and were reordained. And there are the Eastern Catholic Churches, who use Eastern Orthodox rites but acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope and are in full communion with Rome; most of those allow, and have always allowed, married clergy (not bishops, though).

AIUI, married clergy were the norm (or at least far from unusual) in the Western Church until c. 1000 AD. I read or heard somewhere that this distinction between West and East developed because the East still had a functioning cash economy (and was able to pay its priests stipends) while in the West the only practical way of paying priests was to give them land; Western feudalism entrenched the notion that both land and the job that went with it were hereditary, so a married clergy would mean the Church losing control of clerical appointments, as priests’ sons claimed their fathers’ positions.

So the point of this diversion is that there isn’t a Divine “NO” against married priests, unlike the supposed one against women priests.

Not that this has any bearing on the Church’s homophobia or facilitation of paedophilia.


The celibacy rules encourage a culture of secrecy around sexual behavior among the clergy. People start to protect each other, and as perverse as it sounds, sometimes it gets easier to close your eyes and your ears to certain things when you know that someone has already done so for you. And you might think, “well I wouldn’t,” but everyone thinks that, and if history has taught me anything, it’s that everyone is wrong to think that.


Good point.

Also, I’m guessing, opportunities for blackmail: “You expose my child abuse and I’ll expose your affair with that divorcee.”


Yes, the Pope uses the word “fashionable”, but goes on to say:

"…have to urge homosexual priests, and men and women religious, to live celibacy with integrity, and above all, that they be impeccably responsible, trying to never scandalise either their communities or the faithful holy people of God.”

Putting myself in the role of Devil’s Advocate, I think (based on the quote above) that, by “fashionable”, he means to say gays should not be demonstrably so (i.e., displaying their gayness), as opposed to saying that homosexuality is not a natural inborn sexual orientation.

Oh, well…whatever the case there…



No matter how you try to read it, it always boils down to: “If you’re gay, I’m ashamed of you, and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

Great work padre.



Of course. The focus of my comment was on how the Pope’s use of “fashionable” was interpreted. There’s a huge difference between saying ‘people choose to be gay’ and ‘gay people do not choose to be gay’.


I can see that — thank you for the context.


And yet he doesn’t feel it necessary to say that straight priests should not display their heterosexuality.

What would displaying their gayness mean anyway? They shouldn’t mince up the aisle? Is he basing his understanding of gay identity on re-runs of Are You Being Served?, Julian Clary’s Sticky Moments, and Larry Grayson-era The Generation Game?

(P.S. none of this is aimed at you @hecep. I know you’re not seeking to defend.)


It goes without saying that he is anti-homosexual. He’s a bigot. He says that homosexuals should not enter the priesthood, but that the ones who happen to already be in the priesthood should not [by any shape, way, or means?] signal that they are gay.

I hope someone out there can get the Pope answer those questions; only he can answer them.