I Have A Question

[NotreDame]

On a theological level, homosexuality is dealt with differently than hetero because the church teaches that homosexual attraction is intrinsically different from heterosexual attraction.  From the same link:

 

The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity.

 

On a practical level, homosexuality is a concern during formation where heterosexuality isn't because its' a bunch of guys living together, sharing rooms, bathrooms, etc.  Identifying, policing, preventing heterosexual activity using time-tested methods in use at any all-boys or all-girls dorm would be easier than identifying/policing homosexual activity.

 

There are lots and lots more reasons why the church needed to pay renewed attention to this subject.  If you are young and/or sheltered enough that you aren't really aware of these reasons, then just consider yourself lucky - it's a gift.  If you are genuinely curious PM and I'll forward you more reading.  I think the OP's question has been answered sufficiently and I'm not really comfortable discussing this subject on an open thread here.

[CrossCuT]

I just think its lame. :(

 

You could have the most pious, devout individual who DOES have homosexual attraction and even though he would never dream of acting on it he would be put under scrutiny for entering? And possibly denied?

Edited November 15, 2013 by CrossCuT

[NotreDame]

I just think its lame. :(

 

You could have the most pious, devout individual who DOES have homosexual attraction and even though he would never dream of acting on it he would be put under scrutiny for entering? And possibly denied?

 

Well, as fallen individuals "never dreaming" of sinning doesn't preclude sinning.  Our Intellect should inform the will, but all too often our will is driven instead by our passions.   I would imagine he who wrote the church document would say that someone who has an attraction that is "intrinsically disordered" certainly is not free from the worst of these passions.

 

One could argue that this would be less of a concern for someone who has progressed to a certain degree in their spiritual life, perhaps from the purgative to the illumanitive stage and has no longer has attachment to mortal sin or these disordered passions.   This might be why the church teaches that one must be free from this attraction for three years - to be sufficiently detached.

 

On the whole, when admitting individuals to the seminary and then to the priesthood, the concerns of the Church come before the concerns for the individual - nobody has a right to be admitted or ordained. So I'll just repeat that if you are young enough that you don't understand the need for this and it's motivation, consider yourself lucky. 

Edited November 15, 2013 by NotreDame

[blazeingstar]

I just think its lame. :(

 

You could have the most pious, devout individual who DOES have homosexual attraction and even though he would never dream of acting on it he would be put under scrutiny for entering? And possibly denied?

 

Feelings and actions are 2 different things.  I think that the "never dreaming of acting upon them" would really negate the whole "deep seated tendencies" by way of "tendencies".  When my dog turns over the trash, counter surfs and otherwise terrorizes my house my brain says give her a swift kick in the ribs as she maws on the last of my bread, but I would NEVER act on that.

[CrossCuT]

Well, as fallen individuals "never dreaming" of sinning doesn't preclude sinning.  Our Intellect should inform the will, but all too often our will is driven instead by our passions. 

 

Lets get one thing clear, we are ALL fallen individuals.

And let me remind you that having homosexual tendencies is NOT a sin. Of course we can all sin...that isnt something specific to homosexuals. A homosexual can sin just as readily as a heterosexual. 

[CrossCuT]

Feelings and actions are 2 different things.  I think that the "never dreaming of acting upon them" would really negate the whole "deep seated tendencies" by way of "tendencies".  When my dog turns over the trash, counter surfs and otherwise terrorizes my house my brain says give her a swift kick in the ribs as she maws on the last of my bread, but I would NEVER act on that.

I think thats a good example.

Even though you have these thoughts to kick your dog you dont! And no one is preventing you from owning a dog because you have these thoughts.

[blazeingstar]

I think thats a good example.

Even though you have these thoughts to kick your dog you dont! And no one is preventing you from owning a dog because you have these thoughts.

 

But they would (and should) if they thought I would ever cross the line.  The probem with sexual issues is that we don't understand them all that well and it can be very frustrating to try and decipher what is an idea and what could be acted upon is a hard process.  With preisthood it is better to err on the side of caution, whereas with animals the stakes are not quite so high.

[NotreDame]

Lets get one thing clear, we are ALL fallen individuals.

And let me remind you that having homosexual tendencies is NOT a sin. Of course we can all sin...that isnt something specific to homosexuals. A homosexual can sin just as readily as a heterosexual. 

 

In this post you have argued against things I did not say, while ignoring what I did say.  I was just trying to respond to your question and help give some context to and explanation for the church document and how it might be applied in a certain hypothetical.