homosexuals in priesthood

[beatty07]

Socrates please edit your last post because I hate to see a well-intentioned and zealous brother in Christ sounding so ridiculous.

If you have time to bother yourself with facts and nuances, check out Cardinal George's track record. He is a brilliant and saintly man. You may assume that I have paraphrased him poorly or misunderstood him, and you'd probably be right because I'm not very smart. But don't question Cardinal George's orthodoxy so flippantly and cavalierly. It is odious, prideful, and just plain silly. He is the leader of millions of Catholics, especially trusted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and a prince of the Church.

Show some respect.

[beatty07]

It seems clear that the intention of the Congregation, in choosing this diction, was to leave considerable interpretive latitude for individual Bishops.

[Balthazor]

In responsse to Socrates remark. I would like to say that I beleive there is a difference between those men who acknowledge their homosexual tendencies and try to correct them and do not act on them and try to live a good life in the grace of God and the are men who acknowledge that they are attracted to the same sex and act on it, and live the lifestyle. You know live with the boyfriend and such advocate homosexuality.
I mean one is trying to live in God's grace and recognize the problem as part of his identity that needs to be delt with in a grace filled way and the other is making no attempt to do such and just acting on his own will rather than following God's.

Whether or not you beleive that such men should be allowed into the preisthood the distinction should be made between the two.

[Socrates]

This is not about slandering characters. I am making my remarks based solely on what was reported in in beatty07's post. I can only pray that the Cardinal was indeed poorly paraphrased or misunderstood in that post.

I can't speak about the Cardinal's personal saintliness or lack thereof, but what is stated in that post sounds very wrong and misleading.

No one has ever addressed directly the main points in my post.
What I take issue with is the implication that having a homosexual "identity" is in itself no more problematic for men training for the priesthood than being politically conservative or liberal, or favoring the White Sox or the Yankees, and that it is somehow acceptable as part of one's identity, so long as it is kept in "moderation."

This seems to trivialize a serious moral and spiritual issue, and give a lot of leeway for who is let in the seminary.
Am I misinterpreting something here, or does anyone else find this problematic?

I apologize if it sounded like I was insulting the Cardinal, but I would appreciate it if someone would address the points I have made, rather than making snide comments or accusations.

This is not about mud-slinging - I have a genuine problem (or perhaps a misunderstanding) with the statements made in this thread.

I interpreted the document (as did others) as making a distinction between those who have had a transitory homosexual experience in their past, but which is now thoroughly behind them and repented of, and those who continue to have a problem with homosexuality which is ongoing.

I still say those who identify themselves in any way as "gay" have no place in the seminary.

[beatty07]

[quote]What I take issue with is the implication that having a homosexual "identity" is in itself no more problematic for men training for the priesthood than being politically conservative or liberal, or favoring the White Sox or the Yankees, and that it is somehow acceptable as part of one's identity, so long as it is kept in "moderation."

This seems to trivialize a serious moral and spiritual issue, and give a lot of leeway for who is let in the seminary.
Am I misinterpreting something here, or does anyone else find this problematic?[/quote]

You're right that this would be a bad thing to imply. In fact I was wondering the same thing as the Cardinal spoke. I can pretty much guarantee that he didn't mean this, but I agree that his comments could be misinterpreted that way, especially as poorly transmitted by me.


[quote]I interpreted the document (as did others) as making a distinction between those who have had a transitory homosexual experience in their past, but which is now thoroughly behind them and repented of, and those who continue to have a problem with homosexuality which is ongoing.[/quote]

I really like your choice of words here. But I'm not sure the next paragraph necessarily follows:

[quote]I still say  those who identify themselves in any way as "gay" have no place in the seminary.[/quote]

By "gay", do you mean simply experiencing homosexual temptations, or do you mean some kind of cultural or political sympathy? If you mean simply the temptations, then I think most of the Bishops will differ.

This is the hard case that people are wondering about: What about a man who still feels homosexual attractions, but has fully mastered his sexuality and excels in chastity of body and mind? Does he have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies"? The Congregation for Catholic Education has given us this phrase but has left it without a solid definition. We should assume that this ambiguity is a purposeful deference to individual Bishops.

An attraction to the opposite sex is not disordered. But a temptation to fornication or adultery is most certainly disordered. A homosexual temptation is more disordered still. So with very few exceptions, we all have disordered sexual temptations. Well, somewhere on this spectrum we must draw a line. That line will be somewhere between common heterosexual temptation and the really bizarre sadist-type stuff. But is it intuitively obvious where precisely? My opinion is that it's not at all obvious. I don't think it's "watering down" this instruction to say that the phrase "deeply rooted tendencies" admits of different interpretations.

Can somebody enlighten us with some Latin? Maybe it's the translation that is difficult.

[Socrates]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:56 PM']You're right that this would be a bad thing to imply.  In fact I was wondering the same thing as the Cardinal spoke.  I can pretty much guarantee that he didn't mean this, but I agree that his comments could be misinterpreted that way, especially as poorly transmitted by me.
I really like your choice of words here.  But I'm not sure the next paragraph necessarily follows:
By "gay", do you mean simply experiencing homosexual temptations, or do you mean some kind of cultural or political sympathy?  If you mean simply the temptations, then I think most of the Bishops will differ. 

This is the hard case that people are wondering about:  What about a man who still feels homosexual attractions, but has fully mastered his sexuality and excels in chastity of body and mind?  Does he have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies"?  The Congregation for Catholic Education has given us this phrase but has left it without a solid definition.  We should assume that this ambiguity is a purposeful deference to individual Bishops.

An attraction to the opposite sex is not disordered.  But a temptation to fornication or adultery is most certainly disordered.  A homosexual temptation is more disordered still.  So with very few exceptions, we all have disordered sexual temptations.  Well, somewhere on this spectrum we must draw a line.  That line will be somewhere between common heterosexual temptation and the really bizarre sadist-type stuff.  But is it intuitively obvious where precisely?  My opinion is that it's not at all obvious.  I don't think it's "watering down" this instruction to say that the phrase "deeply rooted tendencies" admits of different interpretations.

Can somebody enlighten us with some Latin?  Maybe it's the translation that is difficult.
[right][snapback]807755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As I've argued elsewhere, I beleive it wrong that people with intrinsically disordered conditions such as homosexuality (whether celibate or no) should be in the priesthood (Todd "Apothenon" has argued this more thoroughly).

However, I'd agree there is some grey area. Basically, I'd say that anyone who would identify himself as "gay" should be out. This would include those with cultural or political affinities with the "gay" crowd, and I'd say also would include those with strong and persistant sexual attractions to the same sex.

I'd agree that we can't weed out everybody who's ever had a passing homosexual attraction or experience in his life (especially if it was in adolescence).

Basically, I'd say that if a candidate can relate to others as a man, and that if neither he himself, nor others, would readily identify him as "gay," there probably isn't much of a problem.

What I do have a problem with is seminaries becoming "gay environments" or the priesthood becoming seen as a "gay profession."

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 10:25 PM']What I do have a problem with is seminaries becoming "gay environments" or the priesthood becoming seen as a "gay profession."
[right][snapback]807775[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Im sure you wont find anyone here who will disagree with that.

As I have stated before many times, and I still hold to this, is that each case about men with some sort of connection with SSA should be handled individually, and the Vatican holds this same view. That is the reason why they did not make a sweeping ban on all men with some sort of SSA, but rather, only those who identify themselves as "gay" or support the lifestyle over the teachings of the Church.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Deal Hudson']The language contained in the Vatican's document on homosexuality and the seminaries has revealed significant differences of interpretation among the Catholic bishops.

The president of the USCCB, Bishop William S. Skylstad, does not think the document completely bars a man with homosexual inclinations. Skylstad interprets the language of the document as saying the central issue is not a man's homosexual inclinations alone, but whether a man is "animated by a gift of his whole person to the church and by an authentic pastoral charity."

If this gift, "becomes paramount," Skylstad says, "then he can minister and he can minister celibately and chastely."

Bishop John M. D'Arcy (Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind.) called Bishop Skylstad's view of the document "simply wrong." It's very rare for one bishop to criticize another bishop in public.

Bishop D'Arcy added, "I would say yes, absolutely, it does bar anyone whose sexual orientation is towards one's own sex and it's permanent…I don't think there is any doubt about it."

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, DC lined up behind the Skylstad interpretation. His spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, said, "There can be people whose orientation is homosexual if it's not such a strong part of their makeup that it interferes with their ability to live out church teaching."

The meaning of a single phrase used in the document - "deep-seated-homosexual tendencies" - is at the core of the disagreement. The document contains only about 1300 words, written in Italian, but it has been in preparation since 1996 when then Cardinal Ratzinger requested it from the Congregation for Catholic Education.

There can be little doubt, therefore, that its language was chosen very carefully.

The official title is difficult to say in a single breath, "Instruction on the Criteria for Vocational Discernment with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders." It was signed by Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education and Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB; Secretary on November 28, 2005.

(Archbishop Miller, former president of the University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX, was interviewed by The Window two months ago on what makes a college truly Catholic.)

The disputed phrase, "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," is contrasted with tendencies that are "transitory" and "clearly overcome." (The original Italian is "tendenze omosessuali profondamente radicate").

Rev. James Bretzke, chairman of theology and religious studies at the University of San Francisco, who read the document in Italian, thinks the import of the document is being overstated.

Bretzke thinks "deep-seated" means no more than someone is actively living the gay lifestyle, not just having a same-sex attraction. "A lot will depend on where the bishop falls on the issue beforehand."

The official English translation of the document, however, even read superficially, contradicts Bretzke's interpretation. It distinguishes between "persons who practice homosexuality, [those who have] present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or [those who] support the so-called gay culture."

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html"]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 [/url]

All three of these conditions disqualify a man from being admitted to seminary or receiving holy orders. None of these are considered a "transitory problem, such as, for example, an adolescence not yet complete. Such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate."

But Rev. Bretzke is surely correct in saying that the interpretation of this document will depend on the attitudes of the individual bishops.

The question arises whether anyone in the church will attempt to define just what is meant by "deep-seated tendencies," or will the bishops be content with a laissez-faire approach to the document's interpretation.

One expert in the dynamics of homosexual attraction, Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, has offered some preliminary thoughts on the difference between "deep-seated" and "transitory" same-sex attraction.

In a two-part interview for the news agency Zenit on Dec. 5-6, Dr. Fitzgibbons suggested that a man with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies would:

1.  Identify himself as homosexual. "Those with mild homosexual tendencies do not identify themselves as homosexuals."
2.  Be unwilling to examine the emotional conflicts that caused this tendency, especially, "profound weakness in male confidence."
3.  Have "significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual…"

In addition to positing "denial, defensiveness, and anger" as signs of deep-seated same-sex attraction, Fitzgibbons points out that there are two psychological tests that are 90 percent accurate in identifying men with homosexual attraction - the Boy Gender Conformity Scale from the University of Indiana and the Clarke Sexual History Questionnaire.

It remains to be seen whether the bishops, in attempting to implement the recent document, will consult experts such as Dr. Fitzgibbons on what constitutes the level of homosexual attraction that could become an obstacle to the priesthood.

The issue of homosexuals in the priesthood is highly explosive. But the Vatican has set forth a criterion for accepting or rejecting homosexual candidates. Will the criterion remain vague, subject to contradictory interpretations, or will the Vatican or the bishops take steps to agree on its specific meaning?

We will see.[/quote]

Interesting. I think that Deal Hudson's question is a valid one: Will the criterion remain vague, subject to contradictory interpretations, or will the Vatican or the bishops take steps to agree on its specific meaning?