How Entrenched Is Homosexuality In The Seminaries?

[Guest]

nm

Edited March 28, 2014 by Guest

[BigJon16]

I haven't been following this thread, but I'm not sure if any one has looked at the Holy See's documents on it, so I'll throw this one up. It was released by the Congregation for Catholic Education titled Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

 

 

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. 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. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8]. 

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that 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]. 

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. 

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Just cause, ya know, Church knows best. Read the whole document if you really care, but I just grabbed an excerpt. 

[CrossCuT]

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. 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. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8]. 

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that 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]. 

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. 

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

 

I feel like some contradictions are  happening here.

They state that homosexual persons need to be respected and loved and that no "unjust" discrimination should occur against them?

Yet they are sitting here generalizing that all people with SSA are gravely hindered in relating correctly to men and women?

 

 

Lolwut???????????

 

I respect everything about the office in which this came from, but I think we need to withhold this "just" discrimination until we fully understand all the implications of homosexuality. 

 

This whole expert seems confusing in their language anyway.

They are saying "Nope, can never happen", yet they are siting homosexual acts and strong inclinations. So that seems to me that as long as youre not acting on the inclinations, you should be fine.

 

And that goes  back to what I was saying before that these situations need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

I am a faithful Catholic and I love the church, however I think there is a lot of error in the treatment and decisions behind handling those with SSA in the church.

 

We thought at one point that the sun revolved around the earth and it was a HUGE scandal that this was incorrect. I think that we need to allow our sister Science do her job and inform us of what is truth in the physical world or at least be OPEN to it. Realize that SSA doesnt debilitate peoples ability to relate to their brethren, that SSA doesnt prevent you from having a strong spiritual life with God, that SSA doesnt automatically make you a sex hungry savage. etc.

 

I do honestly believe that a lot of the stances we currently hold against the homosexual community are based on old information, prejudice, and fear. Clearly this is not set in stone as our current papa doesnt seem to be going in line with the same old "just" discrimination.

Edited March 28, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Ice_nine]

what if you're just a smidgen gay and not like, super, super gay?

[CrossCuT]

what if you're just a smidgen gay and not like, super, super gay?

 

REJECTED!

 

 

But in all seriousness, I dont think the Church has answers for this stuff. They dont have the information they need to make an informed decision right now. 

Homosexuality isnt all or nothing. Its not black and white. So you can be making generalizing proclamations about the condition of these people because its not that well understood yet.

Edited March 28, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Lilllabettt]

I am a faithful Catholic and I love the church, however I think there is a lot of error in the treatment and decisions behind handling those with SSA in the church.

 

I respect your opinion, but please be honest. On another thread you admitted publicly that you did not accept the Church's teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts. 

 

I think it is fair to say that your lack of faith in that teaching would color your judgment about how the Church addresses SSA in potential candidates for priesthood.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think Pope Francis, though saying very little, has been quite fair, pointing out that "the church has sometimes locked itself up in small things," and "religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person." 
 
He makes a simple but much needed point — God is the one who sets all in motion, and have given each person their own special cross. The Church need not "lock" itself up with every sin of the world, but turn itself to the bigger and more important issues of the world, and to allow God to work with each person on their own spiritual level.

"Tell me," he said, "when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being."

Edited March 28, 2014 by tardis ad astra

[Luigi]

REJECTED!

 

 

But in all seriousness, I dont think the Church has answers for this stuff. They dont have the information they need to make an informed decision right now. 

Homosexuality isnt all or nothing. Its not black and white. So you can be making generalizing proclamations about the condition of these people because its not that well understood yet.

 

Clearly, no matter what we say, and no matter what the Church says, you disagree. You're right and everybody else is wrong. Fine.

 

 

I leave the topic to those with more perseverance and patience than I have.

[PhuturePriest]

I respect your opinion, but please be honest. On another thread you admitted publicly that you did not accept the Church's teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts. 

 

I think it is fair to say that your lack of faith in that teaching would color your judgment about how the Church addresses SSA in potential candidates for priesthood.

 

This is quite a serious statement about some else's beliefs. Do you remember what thread that post is in?

[CrossCuT]

I respect your opinion, but please be honest. On another thread you admitted publicly that you did not accept the Church's teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts. 

 

I think it is fair to say that your lack of faith in that teaching would color your judgment about how the Church addresses SSA in potential candidates for priesthood.

Negative. Id like you to find a quote of when I directly expressed opposition to the churches teaching on homosexuality.

 

I have however been outspoken against the conservative church's treatment of homosexuals as well as been open about  my support of civil unions. And of course, I have been open about my opinion that celibate, faithful homosexual men are just as capable of fulfilling the duties of priesthood if it is in their vocation and thus reflected upon by them with the help of their spiritual directors.

 

 

Clearly, no matter what we say, and no matter what the Church says, you disagree. You're right and everybody else is wrong. Fine.

 

 

I leave the topic to those with more perseverance and patience than I have.

Well, clearly!

All I have done is question some very logical inconsistencies and short sighted treatment of homosexuals. Im asking for some good reasons that they shouldnt be priests. You only said that they cant be role models and the like which is almost a cruel thing to say.

 

They have deep rooted sins!!! Well, I think we all know that only acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. And in that vein, we ALL have sinful tendencies that we choose not to act on. But conservative Catholics are SO bent on fine focusing on this topic that it is leading to some backlash and negative feedback from our society. 

 

We are more quick to judge and condemn than we are to love...and thats where the problem is.

[CrossCuT]

This is quite a serious statement about some else's beliefs. Do you remember what thread that post is in?

 

Its not the first time. Lilll apparently knows my soul very well and has deemed me an unfaithful tart on a few occasions.  :hehe2:

Edited March 28, 2014 by CrossCuT

[PhuturePriest]

Negative. Id like you to find a quote of when I directly expressed opposition to the churches teaching on homosexuality.

 

I have however been outspoken against the conservative church's treatment of homosexuals as well as been open about  my support of civil unions. And of course, I have been open about my opinion that celibate, faithful homosexual men are just as capable of fulfilling the duties of priesthood if it is in their vocation and thus reflected upon by them with the help of their spiritual directors.

 

 

Well, clearly!

All I have done is question some very logical inconsistencies and short sighted treatment of homosexuals. Im asking for some good reasons that they shouldnt be priests. You only said that they cant be role models and the like which is almost a cruel thing to say.

 

They have deep rooted sins!!! Well, I think we all know that only acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. And in that vein, we ALL have sinful tendencies that we choose not to act on. But conservative Catholics are SO bent on fine focusing on this topic that it is leading to some backlash and negative feedback from our society. 

 

We are more quick to judge and condemn than we are to love...and thats where the problem is.

 

"Conservative church"? You speak as if the Catholic Church is divided between a liberal Church and a Conservative one.

[NotreDame]

I think Pope Francis, though saying very little, has been quite fair, pointing out that "the church has sometimes locked itself up in small things,"

 

But, to be fair, the issue of active homosexuals in the priesthood is not a small issue.  The issue of men struggling with SSA in the seminary being preyed on by these active homosexuals is also not a small issue.  Yet, these are the issues the church is trying to combat with it's policies. 

 

If these scandals aren't things that readers are familiar with, I'd suggest the following (caution: graphic information in this article):

 

http://gawker.com/5825254/the-catholic-churchs-secret-gay-cabal

 

Stuff like this ^^^ isn't - or at least wasn't isolated in the past.  There's a lot that's public.  Stuff like Archbishop Weakland and the diocese having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to his ex-lover - and the public stuff is probably just the tip of the iceberg.  

 

I'm not going to post a ton on it, but there's a lot out there if you want to research it.  I'm also not going to explain all the ways this hurt the Church, because if you can't figure that out on your own then me explaining it isn't going to help. 

[CrossCuT]

"Conservative church"? You speak as if the Catholic Church is divided between a liberal Church and a Conservative one.

 

I have experienced a pretty clear difference in opinion between pools of thought in the church. Nothing that goes against core teaching, but in some smaller things that are more pop culture related such as homosexuality for example.

 

Maybe its just in my area? Not sure. 

[CrossCuT]

But, to be fair, the issue of active homosexuals in the priesthood is not a small issue.  The issue of men struggling with SSA in the seminary being preyed on by these active homosexuals is also not a small issue.  Yet, these are the issues the church is trying to combat with it's policies. 

 

If these scandals aren't things that readers are familiar with, I'd suggest the following (caution: graphic information in this article):

 

http://gawker.com/5825254/the-catholic-churchs-secret-gay-cabal

 

Stuff like this ^^^ isn't - or at least wasn't isolated in the past.  There's a lot that's public.  Stuff like Archbishop Weakland and the diocese having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to his ex-lover - and the public stuff is probably just the tip of the iceberg.  

 

I'm not going to post a ton on it, but there's a lot out there if you want to research it.  I'm also not going to explain all the ways this hurt the Church, because if you can't figure that out on your own then me explaining it isn't going to help. 

 

Bro, we arent even talking about active homosexuals. Obviously that wouldnt fly, duh.

 

And other boys getting preyed upon? Obviously thats not ok and if it happened those people should be thrown out. But that is a good example and I dont think its limited to homosexuality. There are other types of preying that can happen due to mental disorders people have or just being ass holes.

 

So why arent those such hot topics? Obviously those things happen too.