Seminarians with same-sex attractions

[jezic]

Everyone is called to follow Jesus in the commitment to celibacy if they are to become priests.

Like the bishops i await a more difinitive teaching from the Vatican.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 14 2005, 12:10 AM'][snip] even though it might make sense theologically, there is the practical problem[right][snapback]722612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sorry to take it out of context, but you hit a major problem i see here often.

As i observe people here, and I do not say this to be mean or anything, but people here have a tendacy to see things only as how they should be, according to ideal situations, and they ignore how it happens in real life.

In english, i mean that often, feelings of others, and practical situations are ignored. I think it is very harsh to label a group as "homosexual" and then say they should never be allowed to even step into a seminary. You have to take into account the sensitivity of others. How would you like being branded as a homosexual, and told that you could never go to a seminary? People do not work according to the books. Its not all black and white, and believe it or not, homosexuals are people too.

One may be labeled as a homosexual according to your standards, but who is to judge one's soul but God? It is not as simple as saying "they are homosexual" or "they are not homosexual."

Sorry if I sounded.. angry. I do not mean to offend anyone, or to be a proponent of allowing homosexuals into seminaries, but i think sometimes, we get so caught up in the "it's this way because it has to be this way" kind of thinking, that we forget that we are talking about real people, with feelings, who have the right to have their true feelings and being be judged by God alone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 13 2005, 09:29 PM']I am not offering an argument against celibacy nor am I saying that celibacy per se leads to homosexual or even heterosexual lust.  However, the difficulty in maintaining celibacy (or chastity in general) should not be minimized.  Rather, it IS necessary that priests be able to sublimate their sexual urges so that sexual tension is not constantly be built up and expressed in "intrinsically disordered ways" like homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, and (for the few) pedophilia. 

[SNIP]

[right][snapback]722375[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I can see what you're saying. Maybe the problem lies more in masturbation or sexual obsession than attempting celibacy.
But many masturbate without having homosexual urges.

I'd agree that cultvation of purity is the most important thing.

However, it seems to me (and psychologists affirm this) that if a normal "straight" guy was having trouble being pure and celibate as a priest, if he felt an overwhelming need to have sex with another, he would seek out a woman, rather than molest boys or engage in homosexual acts.

The problem with the abusers is a pre-existing sexual problem, not something that comes about from struggling to remain celibate.

[son_of_angels]

You are correct, however that problem is not easily identified. You should also be able to see what I point to as the problem resulting from a judgment like this.

Person feels a vocation to celibacy because he does not wish to have sex constantly like many other boys his age. However, when everybody starts to notice this, he gets called gay, etc. This becomes a part of his sexual self-image, which then implants itself on his private sins (masturbation, lust, etc.). However that call to celibacy remains. As he is preparing to enter seminary, a judgment like this is raised. All of the sudden his whole life has no point. Where should he go? What should he do? The confusion results in questions like, "Why am I Catholic when the Church doesn't understand me?" "If the Church can get this wrong, how can it be right?" "Why did I spend so much time believing that God had prepared me to be a priest?"

Confusion, frustration, anxiety, secrecy, all these antagonize disorders like homosexuality, as opposed to confidence, righteousness, sensitivity (not the false sensitivity that many modern seminaries harbor towards openly gay and liberal seminarians), which in general help the problem.

If the Vatican adopts an absolute no priests who have/or have had SSA policy, the confusion will also result in less people being able to conclude a call to the celibate priesthood, as oftentimes a call to celibacy comes from a desire to leave everything sexual behind. Suddenly they are expected to be attracted to women, which they have been fighting off for as long as they have perceived the call. Satan will assail those who are leaving him behind.

Edited September 15, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Good Friday]

[mod]Nathan is mad[/mod]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 15 2005, 05:56 PM']Three words: floopy YOU ALL.
[right][snapback]724705[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
floopy is a funny word!

My priest tells me that at his seminary, there was a room in the basement with all sorts of wonderful leather apparatus and fun posters! They called that seminary a "pink palace" which may sound slightly derogatory...but oh well.

I think it's shameful that this sort of thing is allowed to occur. Think how many orthodox young men turn away from the priesthood in revulsion at a display like that. Yes, the Church still doesn't approve of that sort of thing, and revulsion is the correct word to use.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 15 2005, 06:41 PM']floopy is a funny word!
[right][snapback]724768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gotta love the curse word screening system.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 15 2005, 11:54 AM']You are correct, however that problem is not easily identified.  You should also be able to see what I point to as the problem resulting from a judgment like this.

Person feels a vocation to celibacy because  he does not wish to have sex constantly like many other boys his age.  However, when everybody starts to notice this, he gets called gay, etc.  This becomes a part of his sexual self-image, which then implants itself on his private sins (masturbation, lust, etc.).  However that call to celibacy remains.  As he is preparing to enter seminary, a judgment like  this is raised.  All of the sudden his whole life has no point.  Where should he go? What should he do? The confusion results in questions like, "Why am I Catholic when the Church doesn't understand me?"  "If the Church can get this wrong, how can it be right?" "Why did I spend so much time believing that God had prepared me to be a priest?"

Confusion, frustration, anxiety, secrecy, all these antagonize disorders like homosexuality, as opposed to confidence, righteousness, sensitivity (not the false sensitivity that many modern seminaries harbor towards openly gay and liberal seminarians), which in general help the problem.

If the Vatican adopts an absolute no priests who have/or have had SSA policy, the confusion will also result in less people being able to conclude a call to the celibate priesthood, as oftentimes a call to celibacy comes from a desire to leave everything sexual behind.  Suddenly they are expected to be attracted to women, which they have been fighting off for as long as they have perceived the call.  Satan will assail those who are leaving him behind.
[right][snapback]724351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While it's not clear exactly what point you are trying to make with this post, I beleive what you are saying is indeed very relevant to the issue.

Seminaries and the priesthood should not be a refuge for those suffering from various sexual identity issues and homosexuality.
Celibacy should not be in itself the primary reason for interest in the priesthood ("I'm not interested in girls, so I'll become a priest"), but rather a sacrifice willingly made for the sake of one's vocation ("The priesthood is such a holy and noble calling that I am willing to sacrifice sexual relations and family for it.")

Too many seminaries have become refuges for the limp-wristed and sexually confused, and this creates huge problems in the Church.
In these troubled times especially, we need strong, manly priests who are men and can act as spiritual leaders of men, men who can truly be addressed as "Father."
When priests and seminarians are flamboyant or effeminate, what what impact do you think this will have for straight men in the Church? Will this draw normal boys and men to the priesthood? Or do we want the priesthood to be seen as a "gay profession" and religion as "sissy"?

Think about it, people.

Edited September 16, 2005 by Socrates

[jiyoung]

I have to say that I'd make a distinction between someone who is gay (as in, accepts the lifestyle and practices it) and someone who struggles with SSA. If SSA truly is a tendency towards sin like any other, then it's possible to be cured of it. The sin is in the act, right? What of someone who struggles with SSA and is chaste? I know a guy who is a postulant in a community--he struggles (struggled?) with SSA but knew that nothing, NOTHING, was more important than his soul, and would not let himself be trapped in that lifestyle. I think you really have to figure out if it's a sin someone's fighting off, or if someone thinks it's just "the way God made me."

[Anomaly]

jiyoung,
Yeppers, the attitude of tolerance and constant second guessing is what has allowed the American Catholic Church to get into the situation it's in.
In order to be 'tolerant' to the problems of 1 man with a sexual DISORDER, it's let that person be placed in a situation, pre-disposed to sexual maladies, molest another person, thus affecting the spirituality of dozens, (or thousands when the crime becomes public) of persons.

It's for the greater good of the Church to say NO to men with any sort of sexual malady, whether its 'stuggles' with SSA, 'stuggles' with OSA, stuggles with sexual identity.

I give no weight to the 'admonishments' of some simpering, lisping, effeminate 'man', nor do I give weight to the 'admonishments' of some 'oggling', 'overly manicured', 'metro-sexual' 'man' who displays his sexuality.

If you aren't emotionally and psychologically balanced, you aren't really called to counsel or guide others. There are lots of ways to serve God without being a priest. (BTW, that goes for the 'women' who just got 'ordained' at the Mary Magdalene Apostle Church.)

[jiyoung]

Yes, that's true. My point, though, is that the order, or seminary, should be discerning right along with the candidate--not all people are alike. Unfortunately the attitude up till lately was just to let in any gay man (and again I'm making that distinction between gay and struggling with SSA). It's possible to be cured from a sin, which is all SSA is--a tendency towards a sin, just as another seminarian might have a tendency towards masturbation, fornication, pornography, etc.

I think the problem lay with the attitude that priesthood could be a refuge for gay men, and the fact that some seminaries embraced that. That's why all of those "pink palaces" cropped up, isn't it? But I would say that it should be a rare exception, when the man is an exceptional case of virtue despite his tendency towards SSA.

[Anomaly]

It's the rare occaision that a priest is a molestor.
It's not a rare occasion that a priest that molests causes significant and tremendous harm.
What's the harm in erring on the side of the potential victims when evaluating priests candidates?
Which is worse? Having 4 parishes share a priest, or having 1 of the priests in 4 parishes molest an adolescent?

[Eutychus]

[size=5][center][color="#FF0000"][b]STOP

THINK

IS THIS A NEW PROBLEM??[/b][/color][/center]
[/size]
NO.

Back in the earliest days of the church era, most were coming in from a Greek culture. In that culture homosexuality and pederastry was considered "normal" in many circumstances...JUST LIKE TODAY.

So, that church KNEW, they had to deal with men who were outright q-ueer, semi q-ueer, bordline q-ueer, and off and on q-ueer.

It was something that was as REAL then, as it is for us today. They SOLVED it with prayer and divine inspiration. So, what does the Catholic Church do in practice? Make Paul a SAINT, then immediately STOP doing what he taught under divine inspiration.

Shall we reveiw the SOLUTION to the problem of horney qwerty altar boy grabbing prelates?

OK, here goes...

[quote]1 Timothy 3:1 (KJV) This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop { then a bishop headed up ONE local church, essentially he was a pastor/preacher/leader }, he desireth a good work.

2[size=3] [color="#990000"][b]A bishop then must be blameless,[u] the husband of one wife, [/u]vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 [u]One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;[/u]

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)[/color][/size]

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.[/b]

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless.[/quote]

So, if you want the RIGHT MEN leading your so called church, you toss out those who are UNMARRIED, without children, and MOST of the problems with homosexual little boy loving pederastic priests will cease.

But NO....NO....anything BUT the DIVINE WISDOM that Saint Paul gave you.

The Traditions of CORRUPTED POPES override the word of God every time in the Catholic Church.

AMEN.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1044880' date='Aug 16 2006, 07:48 PM']
[size=5][center][color="#FF0000"][b]STOP

THINK

IS THIS A NEW PROBLEM??[/b][/color][/center]
[/size]
NO.

Back in the earliest days of the church era, most were coming in from a Greek culture. In that culture homosexuality and pederastry was considered "normal" in many circumstances...JUST LIKE TODAY.

So, that church KNEW, they had to deal with men who were outright q-ueer, semi q-ueer, bordline q-ueer, and off and on q-ueer.

It was something that was as REAL then, as it is for us today. They SOLVED it with prayer and divine inspiration. So, what does the Catholic Church do in practice? Make Paul a SAINT, then immediately STOP doing what he taught under divine inspiration.

Shall we reveiw the SOLUTION to the problem of horney qwerty altar boy grabbing prelates?

OK, here goes...
So, if you want the RIGHT MEN leading your so called church, you toss out those who are UNMARRIED, without children, and MOST of the problems with homosexual little boy loving pederastic priests will cease.

But NO....NO....anything BUT the DIVINE WISDOM that Saint Paul gave you.

The Traditions of CORRUPTED POPES override the word of God every time in the Catholic Church.

AMEN.
[/quote]

Except the verse was saying he couldn't be a polygamist and if he had children, that they were to be in subjection to them. Paul also taught celibacy "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

"...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" Matthew 19:12

By the way, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have married priests. Celibacy is not dogma, it is custom. If we are to get the right men leading the church, we have to re-vamp our CCD programs, emphasize the importance of the Church, and go against what MTV tells us to do. Celibacy isn't tossed out because it's too hard, it's because our current culture is sex-saturated and perverted.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

2 "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.
[/quote]

You, like so many other Protestants, misinterpret the book the Holy Ghost and the Church gave to you.