Back and Forth on Gays in the Seminaries
September 23, 2005
To the Editor:
Can you blame them? (“Gay Seminarians Face Purge,” by Andy Humm, Sept. 22-28).
The church is obviously learning from the abuse scandal. People who have a supposed desire for their sex should not be involved in papacy, daycare, or other jobs like that. Your story seems to be saying that the Church is wrong and is purging them like you would a virus, but the fact is, it’s not the place for them. Let them be around adults in an office. How many more altar boys have to be raped before even you realize this is not smart? Despite all your opinions, you think people want their kids with gay priests? I have a bi friend, and he’s an actor. That’s a good job.
Howard Jay Meyer
September 25, 2005
To the Editor:
It pisses me off that an assistant for the priest in charge of rooting out gays in the priesthood says openly that the primary concern is that priests must be prepared to live a celibate life.
When asked if this were indeed a purge, Monsignor Frank Maniscalco said, “That is not the purpose of it,” and rejected charges that the church is scapegoating gay people. However, he added, “Anyone coming into a seminary needs to be about honest about whether they can live celibately.”
It’s not as if the priesthood isn’t regularly losing men who decide to marry women. I suspect that the priesthood was an outlet for some gay men who encountered persecution in lay life even if they tried to hide their homosexuality.
It’s doubly disturbing that those priests who are straight or who are confused or in denial about their sexuality believe that a ban on gay priests will actually solve anything.
How did the church come to believe that it is the acme of morality and virtue? Why can’t the Catholic hierarchy come to the realization that they’re doing the church a disservice by attempting to exclude a group that may have ensured its survival for the last two thousand years.
September 23, 2005
To the Editor
What a bunch of dribble! The “arguments” professed in this totally biased article are the most singularly convoluted I have ever had the misfortune of reading. And that is a strong statement, considering the era of intolerance and extremist positions we live in.
While I am obviously not in agreement with the gay life style, I am not homophobic. In fact, one of my two sons is a declared homosexual. However, he is not a priest who would purport to administer the gospel of any recognized religious faith to others and especially not to minors.
I recognize my son’s right to define his own perception of love and sex. While I do not agree with them, I continue to support him financially and emotionally. However, I cannot understand how anyone can advocate the inclusion of pedophiles any more than one can of heterosexual predators in the guise of a minister of the gospel.
While I do not have a solution to either understanding the complexities or effective control of an individual’s personal demons—and that includes my own—I do know I have no right to make some one else a victim of them; especially youth, male or female!
September 24, 2005
To the Editor:
Gay priests, hearing they’re about to get zapped by the pope, said they “couldn’t believe that after centuries of either explicit or implicit welcoming of celibate gay clergy that the church would turn its back on them.”
Why the shock? After centuries of encouraging psychotic anti-sexual hysteria and superstition, they’re simply coming to grips with their own sexuality. They’ve decided that gay men can’t be priests—they’ll purge the seminaries, then conduct a witch-hunt in parish houses to get those already ordained.
The Vatican did this to scapegoat; they need a diversion from the outrage over priests raping children. For them it’s all about money. It’s estimated they’ll lose about $3 billion in the U.S., with comparable figures for Europe, Latin America, and other priest-besotted regions. They want to go to court and say, “Mea Culpa, it wasn’t us. It was those nasty queers. Please don’t take out money.”
Their problem is that all priests, straight and gay, may express their repressed sexuality by raping children. Consequently the only thorough answer is chemical castration and providing armed guards for altar boys and girls. That solution flows from the bizarre lifestyle and dogma they choose, so they can’t object. Is that resolution embarrassing, demeaning, or mean-spirited? Is it demeaning to attack gay sexuality, to maliciously humiliate unmarried pregnant women, stop divorces, or condemn thousands to death by opposing condom use? Is it mean-spirited to cause unwanted births and back alley abortions? Gay or straight, priests are backward parasites who promote reactionary politics, superstition, irrationality, and bigotry. Turn about is fair play.
Las Vegas, Nevada
Please address letters to the editor to
Or fax them to 646-452-2501
Or mail them to 487 Greenwich St., Suite 6A, New York City 10013.
Please include your phone number, for confirmation purposes only. The editors reserve the right to edit all letters due to space constraints.