Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[argent_paladin]

I've seen a lot of people saying "Rome has spoken". Technically, it hasn't yet. I am hesitant to cast judgment until I can read what the new Instruction actually says. Small nuances of language can be lost on journalists, but are extremely important. Let's just be patient and see what it says.

[dspen2005]

i think, though, that it is safe to say that the Vatican will not liberalize its policy, is it not??? So the speculation that is going on, is appropriate....

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Sep 21 2005, 05:25 AM']i think, though, that it is safe to say that the Vatican will not liberalize its policy, is it not??? So the speculation that is going on, is appropriate....
[right][snapback]732416[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Speculation is appropriate. Statements that "Rome has spoken" however, is not speculation but a way to end a discussion, the very opposite of speculation.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 21 2005, 12:19 AM']I'm not arguing about the supposed ban; I'm not qualified to make a judgement, but I wonder about your focus on temptation.

Like Pio Nono said, a large part of a priest's life is dealing with women (often lots of pretty young women!)  How is the one temptation worse than the other?
[right][snapback]732333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Because the temptation is very different. A priest is not surrounded by beautiful young women 24/7, nor is he often alone with them (outside of the confessional or other pastoral practice), and most diocesan policies caution heavily against being alone with parishoners outside of the confessional which demands privacy.

However, in the seminary, the homosexual seminarian is surrounded by those to whom he is attracted to 24/7 and probably has many times in which he is alone with another male. After ordination most priests either live alone, or with one (maybe two) other priests, again, here he would be surrounded by males and having lots of alone time.

Your average priest isn't surrounded by beautiful young women but more than a couple hours or so at a time. Priests are often surrounded by other men practically 24/7 however, especially if there is another priest in residence.

ALSO, you don't see newly ordained priests going to live in the dorm at an all girls college do you? We would think that a rather rash and inappropriate judgment, would we not? So why are we wanting to place homosexual men in a state of life where they would be surrounded by those they are attracted to far beyond the norm of everyday interactions (i.e., because they would be living together, etc.).

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 21 2005, 12:19 AM']I'm not arguing about the supposed ban; I'm not qualified to make a judgement, but I wonder about your focus on temptation.

Like Pio Nono said, a large part of a priest's life is dealing with women (often lots of pretty young women!)  How is the one temptation worse than the other?
[right][snapback]732333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

At the most basic level the difference is that one temptation is perfectly natural and the other is contrary to nature. Men should be attracted to women. Men being attracted to other men is disordered and can often be a sign of deeper psychological or moral issues.

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 21 2005, 06:13 AM']I've seen a lot of people saying "Rome has spoken". Technically, it hasn't yet. I am hesitant to cast judgment until I can read what the new Instruction actually says. Small nuances of language can be lost on journalists, but are extremely important. Let's just be patient and see what it says.
[right][snapback]732414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with that sentiment. We shouldn't say: [i]Rome has spoken[/i].

But we can, using catechetical material, promote the nuance of what has been reported thus far. I doubt seriously that the Holy Father is going to waiver much from the catechetical stance on chastity and homosexuality as outlined in CCC 2357-2358.

So, I think that an inferrance of how to live a chaste life, as well as understanding the foreboding that goes with the fact that if someone is undergoing a trial of the magnitude of homosexuality, then to put them in the position of having to live in close proximity of those he is attracted to is not in his best interest. This is not appropriate insofar as the persons trial will not be illeviated, but rather it will be heightened.

And again, the Holy Father is not saying (sic. I am sure that he will not say) that those who suffer from homosexuality cannot be chaste, but at this time they are not called to priesthood. Again, this is a disciplinary matter and not doctrinal nor dogmatic, so this could change in the future. Again, there are many people who cannot be called to the priesthood. There are many circumstances that apply, other than homosexuality.

Homosexuals can contribute to the Church in a way that all lay persons do. That is outlined in CCC 897 and following. Especially:

[quote name='CCC 901']"Hence the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives."[/quote]

I feel as though I am preaching to the choir, but your statement was a springboard to continuing the thought that I had yesterday. Sorry for the ramble.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 21 2005, 07:35 AM']I agree with that sentiment.  We shouldn't say: [i]Rome has spoken[/i]. 

But we can, using catechetical material, promote the nuance of what has been reported thus far.  I doubt seriously that the Holy Father is going to waiver much from the catechetical stance on chastity and homosexuality as outlined in CCC 2357-2358.

So, I think that an inferrance of how to live a chaste life, as well as understanding the foreboding that goes with the fact that if someone is undergoing a trial of the magnitude of homosexuality, then to put them in the position of having to live in close proximity of those he is attracted to is not in his best interest.  This is not appropriate insofar as the persons trial will not be illeviated, but rather it will be heightened.

And again, the Holy Father is not saying (sic. I am sure that he will not say) that those who suffer from homosexuality cannot be chaste, but at this time they are not called to priesthood.  Again, this is a disciplinary matter and not doctrinal nor dogmatic, so this could change in the future.  Again, there are many people who cannot be called to the priesthood.  There are many circumstances that apply, other than homosexuality.

Homosexuals can contribute to the Church in a way that all lay persons do.  That is outlined in CCC 897 and following. Especially:

[quote name='CCC 901']"Hence the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives."[/quote]

I feel as though I am preaching to the choir, but your statement was a springboard to continuing the thought that I had yesterday. Sorry for the ramble.
[right][snapback]732428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Very true.

[StatingTheObvious]

The nit-picking on this thread is an indication of why the American Church has a problem with conforming to reason when dealing with the 'scandals'. With the majority of the problems being priests preying on boys, the same sex attraction is an issue. It doesn't matter if it's pedastry or pedophilia. The American Public doesn't have a perception of priests preying on women so standard hetero promiscuity is not seen as a problem. The Church should have a problem with applicants with SSA. It's a common factor in the MILLIONS of $$$ it has paid out. Splitting hairs and such rot is how Bishops let these predators stay and cause problems. Is it better to prevent a few homosexual priest or risk another scandal that destroys the faith of many thousands?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Sep 20 2005, 10:37 PM']The only thing I want to be debating about right now is how it is unfair to use a blanket statement of "no gays" and to assume that everyone with SSA is exactly the same, handles temptation the same, etc.. and that every one of them has an agenda, and is an active member of some gay subculture.

With all due respect, some of you are very hateful sounding.  There is a line when it comes to speaking the truth. Yes, truth can hurt, but some of the things being said here cross that line, and approach hatefulness.
[right][snapback]732157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Other than the stupid comment about pansies, please PM me with any examples of hatefulness on this thread.

[Thumper]

While it is true that having a copy of the proposed Instruction will be extremely necessary for intelligible debate, let's go with what seems evident right now and revise as and when the need arises.

The article that started this thread off stated:

"Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests."

Note, the article intimates nothing about

1) Homosexual men wishing to enter into religious orders (as brothers)
2) Homosexual women wishing to enter into religious orders.

Hmm. Now, in either of the above cases, homosexuals would be placed into situations which, to use Cam's words, "puts one in close proximity to that very thing which constitutes a trial, [and] seriously puts into jeopardy his or her vocation."

Yet the focus of this Instruction (with the information we have so far) is on homosexual men seeking to enter into the priesthood.

So my question remains: what is it about 1) the priesthood as a particular vocation that 2) disqualifies men with homosexual orientations being barred from ordination to it?

[Socrates]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Sep 21 2005, 07:17 AM']The nit-picking on this thread is an indication of why the American Church has a problem with conforming to reason when dealing with the 'scandals'.  With the majority of the problems being priests preying on boys, the same sex attraction is an issue.  It doesn't matter if it's pedastry or pedophilia.  The American Public doesn't have a perception of priests preying on women so standard hetero promiscuity is not seen as a problem.  The Church should have a problem with applicants with SSA.  It's a common factor in the MILLIONS of $$$ it has paid out.  Splitting hairs and such rot is how Bishops let these predators stay and cause problems.  Is it better to prevent a few homosexual priest or risk another scandal that destroys the faith of many thousands?
[right][snapback]732453[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed.

StatingTheObvious, I dig your style. So many will go to any lengths to AVOID the obvious.

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Sep 21 2005, 07:17 AM']The nit-picking on this thread is an indication of why the American Church has a problem with conforming to reason when dealing with the 'scandals'.  With the majority of the problems being priests preying on boys, the same sex attraction is an issue.  It doesn't matter if it's pedastry or pedophilia.  The American Public doesn't have a perception of priests preying on women so standard hetero promiscuity is not seen as a problem.  The Church should have a problem with applicants with SSA.  It's a common factor in the MILLIONS of $$$ it has paid out.  Splitting hairs and such rot is how Bishops let these predators stay and cause problems.  Is it better to prevent a few homosexual priest or risk another scandal that destroys the faith of many thousands?
[right][snapback]732453[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Making sweeping generalizations(possible new sn for someone) is not and never will be helpful. The key part of your statement is "The American Public doesn't have the perception..."

Talking about statistics is not splitting hairs. Intelligent conversation is based on facts not on perceptions. Also the the "American Public" doesn't make Church policy and thank God for that!!

[exdob]

I do not believe the problem is with a person's sexual orientation but whether or not the person maturely accepts the celibate lifestyle. Either heterosexual or homosexual, the Church has had problems with both orientations. I believe those with homosexual tendencies have become a scapegoat because so many have acted on these tendencies before that certain figures in authority believe it is not worth to take the risk. I, for one, was a seminarian for six and a half years and yes I witnessed mainly homosexual activity, however, I do not believe that people with these tendencies should be barred if they truly demonstrate a celibate lifestyle. Heterosexual men who practice their orientation do the same as a homosexual who practices his lifestyle, they try to it cover up. In regard to formators, they know who practices their sexuality, whether they turn a blind eye is their choice.  By no means am I trying to dissuade anyone from discerning to enter the seminary process, but, the grounds for barring of gay seminarians is presumptuous and judgmental.  

[Eliakim]

Hi Exdob,

Good to see you over here, and way to resurrect the thread!

 

Best/

E

[cmaD2006]

Just in case people miss it and before anyone responds ... this is a 8 year old thread.