Pope Francis' Comments On Gay Priests

[CrossCuT]

No, I have no where called the homosexual condition a physical disorder; instead, I called it a psychical (i.e., a disorder of the soul and will). Now because the homosexual condition is a defect in the psyche (i.e., the soul and will) it can be healed by prayer and ascetic discipline. Nevertheless, what won't help in its healing is for a person who suffers from the condition to see it as somehow normative for him. Instead, he needs to recognize it for what it is, i.e., a defect, a disorder, that must be overcome by reliance upon God and by prayer and determined activity, along with avoiding the near occasions of sin (i.e., situations in which he may be tempted to act upon his disordered passions).

 

Ahh! My bad, I must have read it too fast.  :cheers:

But in any event, no. Studies show it was a physical origin in the brain. Possible epigenetic causes dealing with hormone levels during development.

 

 

 

As far as the priesthood is concerned, I support what the Church has said in its official documents, that is, that men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be ordained. If a man with that problem is already ordained it follows that he will need to struggle against the disordered passions that afflict him, and part of that struggle should be rejecting the modern movement that tells people to embrace the condition as somehow normal for those who experience it. I don't see what is so problematic about my support for the Church's teaching on the issue.

But regardless, if the priest is celibate that doesnt matter? He isnt acting on those desires. And even if he had them how is he to get rid of a physical defect?

He is already doing what he can by overcoming the desires. That isnt enough?

[Apteka]

Ordered vs disordered are relative terms. Many religions frown upon celibacy as disordered, since it is also an act that thwarts God's supposed intention for man, e.g. generating new life. In some religions to pursue celibate life is even sinful! So when someone says homosexuality is disordered, this is a subjective statement set in someone's worldview. Maybe humans are more than genetic generating creatures, and the sexual orientation of one over another is really irrelevant? Just a thought. And as is expected there is theology clouding the discussion. I was not aware that diseases and psychological disorders were the result of a "spiritual fall" in humankind's early evolution, let alone that a fall actually occurred, or even that homosexuality is a disease. Maybe doctors can start prescribing "grace" and "confession" on there prescription pads instead of actual medications.

[CrossCuT]

I mean, if Homosexuality is viewed by you as the result of mans fall...sure...but everything is.

Every single bad thing we do is  part of that. So what makes one "condition" way more immoral than another that calls for exclusive and segregative mentalities?

 

There are a lot of things that we physically inherit that are against Gods plans and design for us, but how many of those people are given the cold shoulder and told to deal?

We help them! 

Edited July 30, 2013 by CrossCuT

[Apotheoun]

Ordered vs disordered are relative terms. 

Perhaps to you they are, but if you haven't noticed I am approaching the discussion, which is focused upon the homosexual condition and the Catholic priesthood at the moment, according to the Catholic Tradition. Do I care what Islam teaches on the issue? No, not really. After all, the Church does not ordain Muslim men - whether their passions are properly ordered or disordered - to the priesthood.

[Apotheoun]

I mean, if Homosexuality is viewed by you as the result of mans fall...sure...but everything is.

Everything that distorts man's nature and leads him to death and sin is a result of the fall. But friendship is not a result of the fall, love for one's parents is not a consequence of the fall, nor is anything else that is a participation in the good a consequence of the fall into death and sin.

[CrossCuT]

Right...so what is your point?

[Apotheoun]

And as is expected there is theology clouding the discussion. I was not aware that diseases and psychological disorders were the result of a "spiritual fall" in humankind's early evolution, let alone that a fall actually occurred, or even that homosexuality is a disease. Maybe doctors can start prescribing "grace" and "confession" on there prescription pads instead of actual medications.

Actually, theology is a light that dispels the fog, and so it does not "cloud" anything; instead, it brings clarity.

 

As far as illness is concerned, it is the common teaching of the patristic tradition that mortality itself, and that includes the various diseases that bring death to man, are a consequence of the fall. God is not the author of death or corruption; instead, man - by his rebellion - is the cause of death and corruption (See for example St. Athanasios' treatise, "On the Incarnation of the Word").

Edited July 30, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Right...so what is your point?

Odd that you ask that. My point is that I support the Church's doctrine on the disordered nature of the homosexual condition. It's as simple as that.

[Apteka]

Perhaps to you they are, but if you haven't noticed I am approaching the discussion, which is focused upon the homosexual condition and the Catholic priesthood at the moment, according to the Catholic Tradition. Do I care what Islam teaches on the issue? No, not really. After all, the Church does not ordain Muslim men - whether their passions are properly ordered or disordered - to the priesthood.

 

I understand that you are answering according to your personal narrative, my point is there is nothing objective or scientific about your narrative. In fact, under any scrutiny your personal metanarrative will be found untenable, so why judge human action according it?

 

Actually, theology is a light that dispels the fog, and so it does not "cloud" anything; instead, it brings clarity.

 

As far as illness is concerned, it is the common teaching of the patristic tradition that mortality itself, and that includes the various diseases that bring death to man, are a consequence of the fall. God is not the author of death or corruption; instead, man - by his rebellion - is the cause of death and corruption (See for example St. Athanasios' treatise, "On the Incarnation of the Word").

 

I'm sorry but that is a very superstitious view of the world. Change was always a part of the universe, men and beings of all kind always tasted death (and this was so even before something like a man walked the earth.) The cells in your body are actually programmed to die, it is a very real part of your biology. So in this case, as in many others, theology only serves to obscure the reality about ourselves and our world, and so it makes no sense to judge people or actions by it.

[Socrates]

While it's  best that persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies not be admitted to the priesthood (per the Church's instruction on the matter), once a man is ordained, he remains a priest.

 

I agree that a "witch hunt" against priests privately struggling with SSA, where no wrong-doing was involved, would be pointless and counterproductive, which I think was the point of the Pope's comments to the reporters.

 

The Church's teachings regarding homosexuality have certainly not changed in any way.  

 

Yet more silly media much-ado-about-nothing.

[Socrates]

Props!

 

Since the church regards this as a mental disorder (I dont really agree but we can just say it is for right now) then where do they draw the line?

Is there an official list of disordered that priest arent allowed to have?

Can a priest have ADD? Anxiety? Phobias? Those are all disorders as well.

If they think homosexuality is a disorder that will somehow make him unfit to do his job then what if he lost a leg? Or an arm?

Or he is blind?

I feel like they should really define these parameters so a priest knows he needs to be healthy.

Maybe they should to fitness entrance exams. 

 

The Church does not specifically use the term "mental disorder," but does teach that homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered" - that is to say they are ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.

 

" Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

 

(From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" by Cardinal Ratzinger)

 

The other conditions you bring up are not in themselves strong tendencies towards moral evil, nor are things like stammering or blindness.

 

A good priest explained that candidates for the priesthood should be men who would make good husbands and fathers, yet willingly give up those goods for the higher good of holy priesthood and spiritual fatherhood.  The priesthood should not be a refuge for men whose sexual disorders make them unfit for marriage.

 

 

Also, while you may be unaware of this, men who are severely physically disabled must receive a special dispensation to be ordained to the priesthood.  This is to reflect the ideal of the priesthood as giving up the best for God, rather than being a refuge for those unable to perform other duties.  (In past times, for instance, a family might send a crippled son whose disability renders him unable to work on the farm or such to the seminary.)

 

There are also various psychological problems which can bar a man from the priesthood.

 

 

The priesthood of Christ is a special vocation with its own requirements; it is not just a "job" available to anyone who wants it.

[Socrates]

Probably correctly or incorrectly depending on your point of view finally, someone from the church hierarchy has said something that isn’t hateful, harmful, and anti-gay – and it was the pope!

 

So, do you mean to imply that everything said on the topic by members of the Church hierarchy prior to Pope Francis's remarks (including official Church statements and documents) has been "hateful" and "harmful"?

[Ice_nine]

Yes, St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out the problem of using "is" in a way that identifies an action with the essence of a being. His solution, which he used to defeat the Eunomian heretics, was to affirm in every proposition using the word "is" in relation to God or man an invisible "is" that bears the weight of essentiality. Action flows from essence - according to St. Gregory - but it is not essential; instead, it is energetic. Actions reveal something about a person (e.g., whether the person is good or bad in relation to a specific activity), but the essence remains beyond comprehension.

 

Sometimes you sound like an undergrad philosophy major who has hit the bong too hard.

 

If you believe this is a mental disorder and that the only help is the grace of God then how do you explain that modern studies are discovering a homosexual phenotype?

Will the grace of God PHYSICALLY change them so that they become heterosexual again? And what if they cant physically change?

 

I study psychology, so I'm not knocking it, but it's a soft-science so the interpretation of data is predicated on the given culture. The idea of sexual-orientation is very modern phenomenon. In my humble opinion, it's not as simple as saying, well "the cingulate gyrus is larger in homosexual men therefore there is a biological basis for homosexuality ergo people are born gay"

 

For instance would these men with the associated physical traits, growing up in different contexts label themselves gay? Cross-historically, probably not before the 1800's or so, and cross-culturally? I'm not sure as it's hard to find societies that haven't been influenced by the modern west. Even within the present culture, say there were physical attributes associated with emotional and pain sensitivity, can we underestimate the effect that cultural conditioning has on the identify formation of young males who might have these traits? Don't forget how our ideas of sex have changed. The fact that most people view sex through a modernized/Christian/romantic lens shapes our sexual identities. In some cultures sex was just a matter of practicality, trade, recreation etc.

 

Just food for thought.

[CrossCuT]

Odd that you ask that. My point is that I support the Church's doctrine on the disordered nature of the homosexual condition. It's as simple as that.

Right, but even though we all share in the downfall of man and the results of sin, youre somehow better than these homosexuals because you didnt happen to be born with that particular "disorder".

You have more of a right to the priesthood than they do?

[CrossCuT]

Sometimes you sound like an undergrad philosophy major who has hit the bong too hard.

 

 

I study psychology, so I'm not knocking it, but it's a soft-science so the interpretation of data is predicated on the given culture. The idea of sexual-orientation is very modern phenomenon. In my humble opinion, it's not as simple as saying, well "the cingulate gyrus is larger in homosexual men therefore there is a biological basis for homosexuality ergo people are born gay"

 

For instance would these men with the associated physical traits, growing up in different contexts label themselves gay? Cross-historically, probably not before the 1800's or so, and cross-culturally? I'm not sure as it's hard to find societies that haven't been influenced by the modern west. Even within the present culture, say there were physical attributes associated with emotional and pain sensitivity, can we underestimate the effect that cultural conditioning has on the identify formation of young males who might have these traits? Don't forget how our ideas of sex have changed. The fact that most people view sex through a modernized/Christian/romantic lens shapes our sexual identities. In some cultures sex was just a matter of practicality, trade, recreation etc.

 

Just food for thought.

 

If you looked at the link I gave earlier in the thread, it was referencing a hypothesis.

There is no hardcore evidence for or against a physical link in homosexuality but that doesnt mean there isnt one.

Every step closer (even baby steps) helps us understand this more and more. I suggest always keeping an open mind to the information presented to you because soooo many scientist hypothesized ideas in which they were mocked for only to end up being completely right in the end.