I Have A Question

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Thank you!  Apparently I have to add "JK" after my post... sheesh!

 

FP totally left himself open for that one!  If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else, I can assure.

 

 

Yes you do need to ad J/K after a joke unless it's a direct Q.Why did the chicken cross the road? A. To get to the otherside meaning a direct question answer joke, i don't think we should assume everyone else has our particular sense. No pun intended.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Deep seeded homosexual desire means to me and i may be wrong, means this " an innate desire for a sexual relationship with another person/s of the same sex."

[PhuturePriest]

Thank you!  Apparently I have to add "JK" after my post... sheesh!

 

FP totally left himself open for that one!  If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else, I can assure.

 

You assume everyone has the same urge to make fun of another's sexuality? That seems a little judgmental to me.

Sexuality isn't something to joke about. It's a serious issue. Whether I'm afraid of being rejected or not due to alleged homosexual tendencies is none of your business and nothing to joke about.

[NotreDame]

FP - I know JPII brought up the subject for the first time in a while, but was a little vague about it, so B16 later gave more specific instruction to seminaries that had a larger impact than JPII's.

 

This is a document on the subject from during B16's papacy.  I don't know if it's the main one or the only one on this subject from his papacy, but I think section 2 might give a bit more detail on your question:

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

 

Having been around and discerning a bit back then, I'll save the details and just say that this rule was needed.  It certainly has changed the makeup of some seminaries as I understand it.  I think you'd be correct in assuming that it's handled on a case by case basis and it's probably implemented a little differently with each order/seminary.

 

[Basilisa Marie]

I can definitely see your points. When I visited the seminary and visited the dorms in particular, there was a really intimate brotherly atmosphere there. I can imagine it would be very difficult if you struggled with homosexuality to be in such a setting without feeling temptations.

 

But still, I met a seminarian or two that struck me as possibly homosexual, so as you say, it is most likely a case-by-case basis.

 

True, but it's also important to note that some men who "seem" gay might not be, and others who don't, are.  And even if they were gay, it's something between them and their spiritual director(s).  If they think he can handle seminary, then good for him. :)  It's not easy being a gay Catholic and trying to find your "place" in the Church.  

 

The document ND links to has Benedict further explaining how gay men can or cannot discern a vocation to the priesthood, but it still leaves room open for interpretation. Especially in the second to last paragraph of section three, does he intend "deep seated" to mean something that serves as a source of temptation to a certain degree? Does he intend it to mean any kind of residual attraction at all? The strictest interpretation would probably go with the latter, a more lax the former.  In practice, it probably depends on the people involved.  I'd even go so far as to say that the ambiguity is intentional, so that bishops and spiritual directors have room for good pastoral care, whether that be confirming the vocation or not. 

 

It also brings up an important point about vocations that some people often forget - vocations are about your desire AND the Church confirming that vocation. If you're actually called to a particular vocation, the Church will confirm it. If the Church doesn't confirm it, then you're not called to that vocation, no matter how much you want it.  It's a two-way street. 

Edited November 14, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Freedom]

I do know Miles has asked people not to poke fun at his sexuality so that's what I was going on.

Pardon me for missing his posts about his sexuality and excuse me for not being a "FP Groupie!"

[Freedom]

i don't think we should assume everyone else has our particular sense. 

[mod]Here's a small idea, let's not try to bypass the filter while making personal attacks. -BG[/mod]... thanks.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Pardon me for missing his posts about his sexuality and excuse me for not being a "FP Groupie!"

 

 

You don't have to be a phatmass groupie. :) Just be a holy roman catholic to the best of your abilities according to grace, and be open to grow and learn like a vine towards the sun, striving for truth. Sorry if i offended you it was not my intention, i apologise, please forgvie me.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

Freedom is back, ladies and gents.

[PhuturePriest]

Yikes!  I haven't seen such insecurities in my life, there are professionals to help with this kind of stuff.

 

You're a very special breed of troll. Good luck in the convent.

[arfink]

Going back to the OP, I wouldn't be concerned about this too much. It isn't a problem at most places. Although, yes, I have seen biased seminary staff who would kick out guys they suspect of being gay. But then again, if that kind of thing is happening at your seminary you likely have lots of other problems with the formation program there as well (like profiling men instead of forming them), and this would be but a small concern.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Deep seeded homosexual desire means to me and i may be wrong, means this " an innate desire for a sexual relationship with another person/s of the same sex."

 

 

I had to fix what i said please forgive. I think it's more like this " the innate sexual desire for person or persons of the same sex." Unsure if there even has to be action attributed to these desires and not sure either whether it has to do we thoughts or feelings or both when it comes to the seminary. So all in all i'm unsure. But i stand with my definition for homo sexual tendencies, i heard it somewhere or other a few times, once was from a priest.

[NotreDame]

Going back to the OP, I wouldn't be concerned about this too much. It isn't a problem at most places. Although, yes, I have seen biased seminary staff who would kick out guys they suspect of being gay. But then again, if that kind of thing is happening at your seminary you likely have lots of other problems with the formation program there as well (like profiling men instead of forming them), and this would be but a small concern.

 

respectfully, as linked earlier, the church explicitly teaches the following:

 

the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

 

So a rector who denies admittance or asks someone to leave based on these characteristics is being obedient to Rome and acting in the spirit of the previous two Pontiffs. 

[blazeingstar]

Pardon me for missing his posts about his sexuality and excuse me for not being a "FP Groupie!"

 

Exactly...posting this kind of question kinda lends itself to jokes.  

 

Now it appears that Freedom has gone to far, which is a shame, because the initial post (as with this one) was funny.

 

Back to the topic at hand.  Our culture is oversexed and under-loved.  I think that more than half of young people who claim homosexuality have very light tendency...the need to be love and accepted and the societal coercion that sexual love is the strongest kind of love and where all non-familial love should lead.  

 

"Deep seated" tendencies, I think, are those born from a true sexual desire that is not well tempered just like in heterosexual men and women.

[CrossCuT]

Does this also include men who have strong heterosexual attractions in the seminary?

 

Im assuming that we are talking about the purity aspect. Of course being gay is not a sin, its acting on it. So even if a particular male who was interested in the seminary had homosexual attraction with no intention of acting on it would be ok?

 

The problem would be if he INTENDS to act on it or may have a hard time controlling his desires just like a heterosexual male might have a hard time controlling his desires but still has an interest in the seminary.

Edited November 15, 2013 by CrossCuT