Another "Straight" man caught being 'gay'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...-gay-monsignor/
Vatican Official Insists He's Not Gay

VATICAN CITY — A Vatican official suspended after being caught on hidden camera making advances to a young man said in an interview published Sunday that he is not gay and was only pretending to be gay as part of his work.

The Vatican after acted Vatican officials recognized Stenico's office in the background of a television program on gay priests that was broadcast on Oct. 1 on La7, a private Italian TV network. Stenico was secretly filmed making advances to a young man and asserting that gay sex was not sinful.

In the Repubblica interview, Stenico said he had met with the young man and pretended to talk about homosexuality "to better understand this mysterious and faraway world which, by the fault of a few people _ among them some priests _ is doing so much harm to the Church."

MJ: QUESTION: How many of our STRAIGHT MALE PCers purposely place themselves in situations whereby they must 'defend' their straightness? This doesn't mean our straight PCers don't go with a group of friends to gay establishments, attend gay day parades etc. It means how many straight men engage in what some may call 'homosexual' situations, but only when caught their defense is "I was just kidding, I was 'investigating'???

Perhaps it's a bad translation. They meant "exploring" not "investigating". Oh, who cares? In two generations no one will give rat's arse anyways. Just sit back and enjoy the circus.

I wonder if this prist, 'as part of his work', also solicits married women for sex. A sin is a sin, isn't it?

Actually, even if he did it 'as part of his work', it's even sicker. To tempt someone to commit an act that the person might believe (in their faith) is sinful, and then to hold them in contempt and judgment is pretty incorrigible. That's got to be a new low for the Vatican.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriuStorm @ Oct 14 2007, 04:40 PM) [snapback]525579[/snapback]</div>

This was an individual priest who works at the Vatican. After they figured out who it was, according to the snippet of info we have from the OP, it appears they "took action".

I presume that means the priest's professional life will be ruined.

There's an assumption being made here that the priest is anti-gay; perhaps he's not. There's an assumption being made that he's a conservative; perhaps he's not.

It used to be considered despicable to "out" people; now it seems to bring liberals great joy. Its only sex, guys.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 14 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]525588[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure who's assuming the priest is anti-gay. But according to his edict and his religion, he is supposed to preach that homosexuality is a sin (which I disagree with). If that is the case and he purposely acts to 'trap' a person in their sin, then that's simply wrong. By him saying he was doing it as part of his job, that's my interpretation of what he was doing.

Now about the liberals 'outing' people... seems to me the joy is in outing the hypocrites... That seems to be a favored activity on both sides of the aisle, but there sure does seem to a lot more hypocrites on the conservative side... B) (maybe they are liberals in the closet, so to speak )

If he's a priest, shouldn't he be celibate anyway? I wouldn't think it would make much difference to be a celibate gay priest vs. a celibate straight priest.

What a neocon choice.

1. Attack the liberals, thus defending the priest.

1. Condemn the priest, thus supporting the liberals.

Kinda a lose-lose scenario.

A colleague of mine who was once a deacon at his church has a theory to explain the prevalence of homosexuality/pedophilia in the priesthood. Since there is no morally acceptable mode of "treatment" for these urges, these would be priests(ashamed to openly reveal their sexual preferences) go into the priesthood(knowing that this is a righteous path) to self treat these "unnatural" urges. For many, their biological urges overcome their will to be "moral". Thus, this is the recipe for the pedophila/homosexuality phenomena in the priesthood.

I think the vow of celibacy is a big part of the problem. Sex is a deep, primal urge reaching all the way from the reptilian remnants of our brains. Abstinence goes against human nature, and maybe sex with choir boys is seen as preferable to no sex at all.

One of the more bizarre perversities of religion is its neurosis about sex. Why can't religion accept sex? Drug use? Not a problem for religion - in fact, some religions use drugs to augment the "spiritual" experience. Mendacity? Religion's specialty (although it pays lip service to discouraging it). But SEX! O the horror, the SINFULNESS of it all! Why? Religion is anti-human in so many ways, but this particular piece of anti-humanism truly baffles me. It's like denying breathing.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

One of my colleagues had an interesting theory about homosexuality and the priesthood. He thought that a lot of gays were drawn to the priesthood because it was one of the few socially acceptable reasons to not be married, back when homosexuality was something that definitely stayed in the closet. If you just had a regular job and stayed single, people would certain question whether or not you were normal. But a priest could easily say "I'm celibate" and that takes all the questions out of it.

In any case, I agree that the anti-sex bias is odd. I can see pushing chastity and faithfulness - but to some people, sex is the pinnacle of immorality. Maybe because it has to do with reproduction, and puts us on the same level as the rest of the animal kingdom? All the other "lower creatures" mate, so we have to put a spin on human sex to differentiate it. No mindless mating, humans must have moral codes governing who they mate with and when they mate! That is changing, though - so many more people aren't waiting for marriage that it just doesn't seem as much of a big deal any more.

Frederick Engels said it began with the desire of men to assure that their wealth passed on to their biological children. So they tried to impose monogamy on their wives. Of course, this failed abysmally, but that didn't stop them from trying, and developing the whole morality thing.

On the other hand, the older, pagan religions of Greece and Rome celebrated sex, and brothels were open, and prostitutes were respected. Young men were encouraged to patronize prostitutes in order to learn the techniques of sex. The "moral" prohibitions on sex began with the monotheistic religions. It might be more likely that the restrictions began as a way for the monotheists to separate themselves from the pagans, and prevent their own followers from "double-dipping": attending the monotheistic religion and the pagan religion also. Pagans permitted their followers to worship as many gods as they liked. You could be a devotee of Apollo and still sacrifice to Athena. But the monotheists desperately wanted to prevent their members from worshiping other gods, and sexual prohibitions may have been part of their strategy.

Whatever the reason, sexual prudishness is one of the most damaging, cruel, and downright evil aspects of modern religions. It tells children that they are sinful and dirty for feeling the things that every normal person feels, and it denies people the physical contact and comfort necessary for emotional health.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 15 2007, 09:55 AM) [snapback]525828[/snapback]</div>

It's not that cut & dried. A man puts considerable resources into raising children, and from an evolutionary, genetic viewpoint it makes sense that he ensures that they are actually his children. At the same time, sneaking his genes into another family is a freebie for him, so that husband has to be on guard. I started watching Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet, same thing.

There are many, many atheistic/agnostic people that practice fidelity, as do people from cultures that are not monotheistic-based, such as the Chinese or Hindu Indians. It's true that our big-3 monotheistic religions do make it a part of their teaching, and frequently to an oppressive degree (why does fidelity usually take precedence above domestic violence?), but it's certainly not unique in it. Witness the until recently accepted practice of wives throwing themselves on their husbands funeral pyres in India, because they no longer had a productive role in society.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 14 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]525720[/snapback]</div>

My "urge" seems to bypass my brain entirely... but does reach clear down to my toes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 14 2007, 10:52 PM) [snapback]525751[/snapback]</div>

Man. You must REALLY enjoy breathing! How do you get anything else done?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 14 2007, 07:50 PM) [snapback]525588[/snapback]</div>

The real issue hear is not the fact of if he was gay, I see it as the Preist was was attemting to solicit some sort of gayness in the office. Thus he got caught & was teminated. In fact it may have been swept under the carpet if it had not been broadcasted on public tv. :mellow:

Think about it, you have a GAY co-worker, its ok that he's gay. but if he starts hitting on other coworkers and /or solicits his homosexuality onto others and they feel uncomortable. The gay person may find themselves working a different shift or terminated.... :mellow:

I see we have an all star PC cast, in the reply department.

Think about it, Homosexuality is still frowned upon by many people around the world. And their not just neocons...

Modern pagans, as well, are seeking to heal the wounds of denying sexuality.

"Let My Worship be within the heart that rejoiceth, for behold: all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals. And therefore let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you." The charge of the Goddess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 15 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]525863[/snapback]</div>

Hey, I agree with everything you said! What are the odds of that? :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 15 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]525863[/snapback]</div>

think about it. i have a straight male coworker. he starts hitting on me in an unwelcome way and it makes me and others uncomfortable. the person who can't act appropriately in the workplace may find himself at the unemployment office regardless of who he hits on...

just sayin' it goes both ways.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Oct 15 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]525861[/snapback]</div>

Anything else? What anything else?

Maybe he can go to the same place Ted Haggard went to to get cured. It did not seem to take very long. :blink: