homosexuals in priesthood

[Era Might]

Regardless of what Phatmass "deserves", you're better than the blasphemies you are spouting here, and have spouted in the past.

Please, go to confession and get your head on straight.

[Black Friday]

[quote name='Era Might']Please, go to confession and get your head on [b][i]straight[/i][/b].[/quote]
My dear friend, that is the [b]entire[/b] nature of the problem.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Black Friday' date='Nov 29 2005, 11:41 PM'][quote name='MC_Just']as for war, they have been happening since the beginning of time, they happened in heaven, they are going to keep happening. Get over it.

There was "a" war in heaven. There have always been wars here on earth. I dont like the iraq war protesters, why?

Because many of them remind me of those liberal dissenter airheads in the 60's.[/quote]
Pope John Paul II would be so proud. I hope you don't call him "the Great" while comparing him with "liberal dissenter airheads in the 60's." Or have you so quickly forgotten after his death that he was opposed to the war? And so is this pope. Gosh, I guess that makes you the dissenter. No?

As for the Vatican document, it just seems like a case of self-hating flowers to me. Do you really expect us to believe that the pope isn't a flamer? For three weeks, he's going to walk around in a purple dress, interrupted only by his pretty in pink week. It just goes to show that God is a drag queen.

Hello everyone! Did you miss me?
[right][snapback]804782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


actually last time i read, Jp II agreed that the war had to go on until it finished. That it was too late to stop it. . Dont call me a dissenter. I dont hang around those circles.

If I were you, Id becareful what I'd say about the church too. Besides, the war protesters im talking about are the "kennedy catholic" war protesters. I just think it's hypocritical how they put on a war face and spew vulgarities, while at the same time holding signs saying"we oppose the war in iraq". and "we want peace". When many of the people in that crowd are starting their own war.

Edited November 30, 2005 by MC Just

[MC Just]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Nov 29 2005, 11:07 PM'][url="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1129priestquit29.html"]http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...iestquit29.html[/url]
[right][snapback]804731[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

typical.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Black Friday' date='Nov 29 2005, 11:41 PM'][quote name='MC_Just']as for war, they have been happening since the beginning of time, they happened in heaven, they are going to keep happening. Get over it.

There was "a" war in heaven. There have always been wars here on earth. I dont like the iraq war protesters, why?

Because many of them remind me of those liberal dissenter airheads in the 60's.[/quote]
Pope John Paul II would be so proud. I hope you don't call him "the Great" while comparing him with "liberal dissenter airheads in the 60's." Or have you so quickly forgotten after his death that he was opposed to the war? And so is this pope. Gosh, I guess that makes you the dissenter. No?

As for the Vatican document, it just seems like a case of self-hating flowers to me. Do you really expect us to believe that the pope isn't a flamer? For three weeks, he's going to walk around in a purple dress, interrupted only by his pretty in pink week. It just goes to show that God is a drag queen.

Hello everyone! Did you miss me?
[right][snapback]804782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so, are you happy? You seem like such a happy person now that you've gone and said those things. God help you.

[track2004]

HaHa... the Pope wears a dress... I mean come on... its funny... its just a joke...

I don't get why the Church keeps talking about this. I mean... we get it... The Church doesn't approve of practicing homosexuals, they don't want gays in the priesthood because it's "disordered" or something, they don't like the "gay agenda" (no matter how fictional it is). But yet week after week they continue to talk about it. They get bad press (yaya... reaching out and apostilizing) and turn people away from the faith. I always get the feeling after reading these papers they publish that it's not the "loving and understanding" they say it's supposed to be. It just sounds like no one can be Catholic and Gay and that they'd rather purge all the homosexuals (and allies) from the Church. But maybe that's just me.

[cappie]

Editorial says gays document also targets macho priests


A comment published yesterday on the Australian Jesuits' website says the Vatican's document on the admission of homosexuals to seminaries presents the ideal of a mature priest as a criterion for admission to priesthood, and therefore its conclusions are "pertinent also to heterosexual men".

The editorial, published jointly by Eureka Street magazine, recognises that the Vatican has a strong interest in the quality of the candidates it selects for ordination because the lives and attitudes of priests who preach the Gospel are important in sustaining or weakening assent to teaching.

The editorial argues that the document presents the ideal of a mature priest - rather than a heterosexual orientation - as a criterion for admission to priesthood.

"The mature priest can live happily and faithfully a celibate life, presumably without sexual repression, suppression, depression or expression... Its appeal to maturity means that its conclusions would be pertinent also to heterosexual men."

The editorial attributes special significance to the Instruction's reference to those with ‘a more deep-seated tendency’.

"This phrase is also found in previous documents, but it is nowhere closely defined. Its meaning is significant, for if it implied no more than that people recognise their homosexuality as abiding, it would reflect negatively on the ministry of many priests and bishops in the Catholic Church. But in previous documents, tendency appears to denote not only sexual identity, but an inclination to act out sexual desires. A deep-rooted tendency would indicate a strong need to do so."

Referring to the exclusion of those who ‘support the so-called gay culture’, the editorial suggests that "an identity sexualised in this way might also be inconsistent with the emotional maturity required to live celibacy happily. But so surely would support for a macho culture."

[journeyman]

Love the sinner, hate the sin ??

the sin being an expression of sexual activity after vows (promises) of chaste living ??

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' date='Nov 30 2005, 03:14 PM']HaHa... the Pope wears a dress... I mean come on... its funny... its just a joke... [/quote]
I'm not laughing. It was a stupid, mean-spirited crack with the sole purpose of provoking Catholics. Not worth furhter comment.

[quote]I don't get why the Church keeps talking about this.  I mean... we get it... The Church doesn't approve of practicing homosexuals, they don't want gays in the priesthood because it's "disordered" or something, they don't like the "gay agenda" (no matter how fictional it is).  But yet week after week they continue to talk about it.  They get bad press (yaya... reaching out and apostilizing) and turn people away from the faith.  I always get the feeling after reading these papers they publish that it's not the "loving and understanding" they say it's supposed to be.  It just sounds like no one can be Catholic and Gay and that they'd rather purge all the homosexuals (and allies) from the Church.  But maybe that's just me.
[right][snapback]805701[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Church doesn't "keep talking about this." This is the first official Church document about homosexuals in the seminary since the early 'sixties.

And the Church is merely reacting (rather slowly and mildly, in my opinion) to a problem which is already in existence. If it weren't for the aggressive demands by the "gay" lobby that the Church change Her moral teachings, and for the problem of many seminaries becoming harbors of homosexuality, and of the abomination of active homosexuality in the priesthood and episcopacy (of which the abuse scandals are only the tip of the iceberg), the Church would hardly have to say a word on this matter.
But the Church has been forced to speak out publicly to counteract the damage which has already been done by the condoning of homosexual perversion within the Church.

It's the "gay rights" people and the liberal media that won't shut up about this.

If the liberal "gay rights" crowd doesn't want to hear anything from the Church about homosexualtiy, maybe they should first shut up and stop trying to press their agenda upon the Church.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 30 2005, 06:42 PM']I'm not laughing.  It was a stupid, mean-spirited crack with the sole purpose of provoking Catholics.  Not worth furhter comment.
The Church doesn't "keep talking about this."  This is the first official Church document about homosexuals in the seminary since the early 'sixties.

And the Church is merely reacting (rather slowly and mildly, in my opinion) to a problem which is already in existence.  If it weren't for the aggressive demands by the "gay" lobby that the Church change Her moral teachings, and for the problem of many seminaries becoming harbors of homosexuality, and of the abomination of active homosexuality in the priesthood and episcopacy (of which the abuse scandals are only the tip of the iceberg), the Church would hardly have to say a word on this matter.
But the Church has been forced to speak out publicly  to counteract the damage which has already been done by the condoning of homosexual perversion within the Church.

It's the "gay rights" people and the liberal media that won't shut up about this.

If the liberal  "gay rights" crowd doesn't want to hear anything from the Church about homosexualtiy, maybe they should first shut up and stop trying to press their agenda upon the Church.
[right][snapback]806096[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In a rather bluntly stated way, Socrates is right.

Its always been clear what the Church taught about this, and the only thing to be achieved by provoking the Church on the issue is a restatement of what it already teaches. The big hissy fit over this is caused by the fact that those in denial about what the Church taught have to face up to the fact that there is a document specifically relating to the issue now, and they can no longer fool themselfs into believing that the Church accepts men with pro-gay agendas.

[cappie]

Father Harvey on Strengths of New Vatican Instruction

"Very Good Because It Does Not Try to Answer Every Question"

NEW YORK, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The new Vatican instruction on the priesthood and those with homosexual tendencies was exactly the clarification the Church needed, says one expert in the treatment of same-sex attractions.

Father John Harvey, an Oblate of St. Francis de Sales, is director of Courage International, a support group for men and women with same-sex attractions who wish to live chastely according to Church teachings.

He shared his views of the new document with ZENIT.

Q: What is your impression of the new Vatican document on seminaries and those with homosexual tendencies?

Father Harvey: I think it is very good because it does not try to answer every question -- it tells you from the beginning that it will not. I think it is refreshing. It simply sets down norms for bishops, rectors and people in seminary work.

I think it is wise to put the responsibility on bishops and rectors to understand this issue and to make decisions about individual seminarians. I think this is a good thing instead of answering every question.

It is clear of two types they do not want: those are actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle and those who push the gay agenda, that "gay is good." People with that view should not be in seminary.

The document rightly mentions that some distinctions should be made between people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies and people with transitory same-sex attractions. It is correct in that some homosexual tendencies may be a symptom of a problem of delayed adolescence.

Q: Did anything surprise you about the document? Or was it as you expected?

Father Harvey: I was not sure what we would get. I cannot really say what I was expecting; I was just hoping it would not be a big universal statement like "Anyone with same-sex attractions is automatically eliminated." It does not say that and allows that there are a lot of distinctions to be made.

I was surprised by the moderation of the document. It did not touch on every situation and left a lot to discretion of theologians and psychologists. I was delighted with it.

Q: What is the significance of the Vatican's document and the Church clarifying policies regarding men with same-sex attractions and seminaries?

Father Harvey: The significance is that this is a statement for the universal Church, not just the Church in the United States.

For years within the Church we have had people pushing the gay agenda -- groups such as Dignity, New Age Ministry, and gay and lesbian ministries. It is about time the Church said clearly that if seminarians have gay tendencies, we need to be aware of it. They should not hide their same-sex attractions or lie about it.

It is also important [that] the document stresses that a person with same-sex attractions is not automatically excluded from the seminary.

Many teen-agers claim to have same-sex attractions at a given time, but they might be able to apply to seminary if they get things under control. There is a distinction between transitory same-sex attractions and permanent and destructive homosexual tendencies.

We are happy to have a statement that can be used pastorally, as I intend to use it.

Q: Are there ways to identify same-sex attractions, deeply rooted homosexual tendencies and conflicts in affective maturity in the evaluation process for priesthood or religious life?

Father Harvey: It is not always easy to identify same-sex attractions; a person may conceal them and only they know they have those tendencies. But psychologists and theologians can talk with someone over a period of time and identify if he has same-sex attractions.

Seminaries need good Catholic psychiatrists working with them on these issues to distinguish between men with transitory and permanent same-sex attractions.

We need more info on how to handle teens who claim they are homosexual; we need to take them seriously and teach them to be chaste -- that is what Courage International does.

A person can be chaste and have same-sex attractions; quite a number have been able to do that. If a man is constantly chaste, is in his mid-20s and has control of himself, there is reason to believe he could continue living a chaste life.

Only psychiatrists will be able to determine if seminarians have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies; we will have to listen to them on this issue.

Any seminarian dealing with same-sex attractions should seek out a Catholic psychologist and give him or her permission to report to the seminary. That makes good sense.

Affective maturity means that as you have become an adult you have learned to handle your emotions; you do not let yourself go. It is a bad sign if a young adult, whether homosexual or heterosexual, cannot master himself.

It is well known from psychological studies that one of the basic difficulties with same-sex attractions is that they are rooted in trauma from a person's past and his relations with parents and peers. The trauma causes emotional problems within the individual.

Homosexual tendencies come early in life with attitudes formed from children dissociating themselves from their same-sex parent and an inability to relate to peers. This affects the way they deal with women and men throughout their life.

Q: The document leaves the matter of the discretion to seminary superiors to determine if a candidate has left behind problematic tendencies. Are you confident this discernment will be in safe hands?

Father Harvey: I am. What good rectors do, when they deal with someone who is problematic in any way, is have someone from outside who is levelheaded give their professional opinion.

In the case of a seminarian with same-sex attractions, he should give consent to a psychiatrist to evaluate him and report to the rector. Private matters can remain secret, but the psychiatrist needs to report whether the seminarian is fit or unfit to be a priest -- it is not a complete disclosure, just an evaluation.

I am confident they will be in safe hands with good Catholic psychologists.

Q: What do you think will be the most misunderstood part of this document, especially in the United States?

Father Harvey: I think there will not be so much misunderstanding as not being clear about the distinction between deeply rooted homosexual tendencies and transitory same-sex attractions. We need help from psychologists to develop this a little more.

The document is not clear about what it calls "sexual troubles," which I think includes masturbation and pornography. Both are reason enough to ask a heterosexual man to not come into seminary; everyone is bound to chastity. Addictive problems do not belong in the seminary.

Q: How do you hope this document will bear fruit?

Father Harvey: I think it will cause a lot of study by those in seminary work; a lot of good is going to come from this document.

It is not meant to be perfect; it is a clarification statement to the Church.

[beatty07]

I have just come from a talk by Francis Cardinal George, who is the bomb, in which this document was briefly discussed. Since the big question is how we are to interpret what "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" means, I thought y'all might be interested in Cardinal George's take.

In paraphrase: the phrasing is meant to exclude those men for whom homosexuality is the primary aspect of their identity, in their personal estimation. If one sees himself as gay first, and everything else is in some way secondary to that identity, then that man is not a candidate for either priesthood or Christian discipleship.

The Cardinal stressed that this is simply common sense, and that it only singles out homosexuals because that's what the document is about. In fact, the same could be said about being liberal or conservative above all, about being a White Sox fan above all, whatever.

So that's how the phrase will be interpreted by the estimable Archbishop of Chicago.

[argent_paladin]

Responding to the Timothy Radcliffe Tablet Article
[quote]Fr. Timothy first reminds us of two things: we should interpret the document "positively" (presumably in a way that liberal, Western Europeans would consider positive) and that the vocation is a call from God (not the Church). Then he says something peculiar:

    I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met. So no priest who is convinced of his vocation should feel that this document classifies him as a defective priest. And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of both.

Now, no one pretends that God doesn't call sinners and broken men to be priests. In a way, all priests (as all people) are "defective" because we are imperfect (only perfect things have no defect). I have no doubt that God calls men who are sexually attracted to men to the priesthood. But that is quite different than God calling a homosexual to the priesthood.
God doesn't call a homosexual to the priesthood qua homosexual, but qua person. God calls us to our vocations as persons--we should not be reduced to our sexuality. God does not call us because of our sinfulness, but in spite of it. Yes, we may bring gifts derived from
our encounter with sin (a sense of humility, fortitude, etc) but the sin or defect is not itself a gift, as Fr. Timothy implies. A same-sex attraction is not a gift, but a defect (which may be seen as an opportunity to grow in virtue, as can all difficulties or temptations). We can see that Fr. Timothy has a very different understanding of homosexuality than does the Church. Fr. Timothy then attempts to understand what the document means by a "deep-seated homosexual tendency." He says that it cannot mean homosexual orientation, because he knows many good priests who have a homosexual orientation and are clearly called by God. But again he falls into a fallacy. He may not go so far as to say "A good priest I know does X. Therefore, X is good," but he comes close. He does seem to be saying that anyone who is called by God to be a priest cannot have a negative trait of enough magnitude to bar them from the ministry. Sadly, however, there are priests with problems relating to alcoholism, sexual abuse, anger issues, etc. Are all these not actually called to the priesthood? Similarly, could one say that all those whose marriages don't work weren't actually called to marriage? Or is there some other explanation?
I think that the vocational understanding of my former Master is a bit simplistic. God calls us to a certain way of life, but it is our choice to follow it. But that is not our only choice, he helps us prepare for the life he calls us to but we can fail in that preparation. If a person felt called to the priesthood, does that mean he could enter the seminary at 9? Of course not. Denying admission would not be an indication that that person is not called, but that he, in the Church's eyes, is not yet ready. Similarly, when the Church says that a man with a "deep-seated homosexual tendency" cannot be ordained, they are not saying that he does not have avocation. He simply needs to mature and reduce this tendency, if not eliminate it. Just because Fr. Timothy knows some good priests doesn't mean that it is not a good policy.
Fr. Timothy further reveals his differences with Church teaching when he says "Seminarians should learn to be at ease with whatever is their sexual orientation, content with the heart that God has given them," which puts heterosexuality on par with homosexuality (or I should say natural attraction to the opposite sex with an intrinsically disordered attraction to the same sex). Fr. Timothy rightly says that this homosexual tendency (or heterosexual one) should not be at the core of our identity, but he belies that statement by consistently referring to "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" rather than the document's "homosexual tendency." The first overemphasizes its importance in identity. He also inflates its importance by using "orientation" which implies a fixed, immovable position, rather than a tendency. His false understanding is fully revealed when he says "I have known priests who thought that they were gay when they were 30, and then discover that they were not, and vice versa. " Using the phrase "discovered" implies an immutable, ontological status, at the core of one's being, unrelated to self-image, behavior, etc. Presumably any one of us could think we are heterosexual, get married, have children and then "discover" our true selves as a homosexual. This understanding is irreconcilable with his previous statement not to celebrate "as central to their lives what is not fundamental." Something that remains despite behavioral change and self-understanding seems pretty fundamental to me.
The Vatican document reflects a much more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the human person and sexuality than does Fr. Timothy's writing, which is riddled with contradictions and bad anthropology. Being told you are immature may sting, but it is not a denial of one's vocation. Indeed, it may be a confirmation of it, since immaturity implies potential, a potential that needs to be grown into, but potential nonetheless.
This is what the Vatican document says about vocation:

    There are two indissociable aspects in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible liberty of the man. Vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. Responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to Him in love. The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive Ordination. It is the duty of the Church— in Her responsibility to define the necessary requisites for the reception of the Sacraments instituted by Christ— to discern the qualification of he who wishes to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to Holy Orders, if he be judged to be in possession of the requisite qualities.[/quote]

[url="http://quodlibetica.blogspot.com/2005/11/defying-master.html"]http://quodlibetica.blogspot.com/2005/11/defying-master.html[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 30 2005, 10:44 PM']I have just come from a talk by Francis Cardinal George, who is the bomb, in which this document was briefly discussed.  Since the big question is how we are to interpret what "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" means, I thought y'all might be interested in Cardinal George's take.

In paraphrase:  the phrasing is meant to exclude those men for whom homosexuality is the primary aspect of their identity, in their personal estimation.  If one sees himself as gay first, and everything else is in some way secondary to that identity, then that man is not a candidate for either priesthood or Christian discipleship.

The Cardinal stressed that this is simply common sense, and that it only singles out homosexuals because that's what the document is about.  In fact, the same could be said about being liberal or conservative above all, about being a White Sox fan above all, whatever.

So that's how the phrase will be interpreted by the estimable Archbishop of Chicago.
[right][snapback]806465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sounds like this particular bishop has a [b]very[/b] loose and weak "interpretation" of this document. Unfortunately typical of our liberal bishops.

[quote]In fact, the same could be said about being liberal or conservative above all, about being a White Sox fan above all, whatever.[/quote]
This is an extremely misleading statement. It makes it seem as though it is only wrong for priests or seminarians to have a "homosexual identity" if this is the single absolute most important part of their identity for them. This is garbage.
The entire reason the Vatican is publishing this document is because homosexuality is an abominable sin and an inclination toward it is intrinsically disordered. For a priest or seminarian to make a sin, the inclination toward a sin, or the "lifestyle" surrounding a sin part of their "identity" is wrong.
It does not become ok if a priest says, "I'm gay, but that's not as important to me as being Catholic, being American, whatever."

Comparing something intrinsically morally disordered to morally neutral things such as being a political conservative or a sports fan is false and misleading. You won't see the Vatican come out with documents about "Republicans in the Seminary" or "Dallas Cowboys Fans in the Seminary."

It seems that people are already bending over backwards to downplay and water down the significance of what this document says, and make it out to mean very little. It is shameful that churchmen are doing this.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Socrates

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 30 2005, 11:50 PM']Sounds like this particular bishop has a [b]very[/b] loose and weak "interpretation" of this document.  Unfortunately typical of our liberal bishops.
[right][snapback]806524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
when your eminence has a ring, I'll be sure to kiss it. Until then, I fail to see how the Cardinal has presented a liberal "interpretation." Rather, I think he did an adequate job of explaining what the document means.