banning gays from the priesthood

[jezic]

what's interesting is that it basically talks about not admitting sexually active men to the seminary. This has always been the rule. I don't see how some claiming to have a homosexual orientation is any different... Even outside of the seminary, people should lead chaste lives not lives that are sexually promiscuous. That applies to everyone.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 19 2006, 10:04 PM']So because that article was old, is that quote that Socrates pulled out the response in question?

ie
**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.**

And so they ever really banned all gays?
Also, if they're banning only the ones with deep seated homosexual tendencies, I wonder what the rationale is... cause they don't ban those with deep seated heterosexual. Is it the few years of entering into the seminary that they are afraid of with all the men? Or do they think gays are more prone to child abuse? or..
[right][snapback]861513[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

dairy,

I think that you may understand this, but I am going to say it for the sake of saying it. We are discussing a Catholic issue in light of Catholic theology and Catholic morality. There is nothing arbitrary about it and there is nothing veiled about what is being said.

You may wonder what the rationale is, but the Church teaches:

[quote name='CCC #2332']Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2333']Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.[/quote]

These two specifically speak to the complementarity that you are questioning by asking about "deep seated heterosexual." See, heterosexuality is oriented toward the physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity good of marriage. This harmony of the heterosexual couple depends on the mutual support between the sexes.

However, the Church goes on to say:

[quote name='CCC #2357']Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2358'] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.[/quote]

Homosexuality closes the gift of life. It doesn't proceed from a geniune affective and sexual complementarity. BUT, we are called to support these people. That doesn't mean tacit or expressed approval of their lifestyle, but by example, we are to show them that geniune affective and sexual complimentarity can be had.

The Church expects this of all Catholics and teaches this:

[quote name='CCC #2359']Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[/quote]

All of what I have posted is harmonious with the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html"]Instruction[/url] from the Holy See. What I have posted speaks directly to what Socrates posted as well as Paphnutius.

Another aspect of this is that none of this is new. Discussions have been going on since the Vatican Council II. [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html"]Optatum Totius[/url] speaks to this:

[quote name='Optatum Totius #6']With watchful concern for the age of each and for his stage of progress, [b]an inquiry should be made into the candidate's proper intention and freedom of choice, into his spiritual, [u]moral[/u] and intellectual qualifications, into his appropriate physical and psychic health-taking into consideration also possible hereditary deficiencies.[/b] Also to be considered is the ability of the candidate to bear the priestly burdens and exercise the pastoral offices.

In the entire process of selecting and testing students, however, a due firmness is to be adopted, even if a deplorable lack of priests should exist, since God will not allow His Church to want for ministers if those who are worthy are promoted and those not qualified are, at an early date, guided in a fatherly way to undertake other tasks. The latter should also be given sufficient direction so that, conscious of their vocation as Christians, they might eagerly embrace the lay apostolate.[/quote]

Again, this [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html#_ftn10"]Instruction[/url] deals specifically with the document from the Vatican Council II. While it may seem as if this is something that transcends Catholicism, it doesn't. Admission to the seminary is soley the repsonsibility of the Catholic Church and those who are responsible for formation of priests. To proport anything else is to convolute and misrepresent the "issue."

[thessalonian]

The matter has been settled it seems. The instruction as noted is out. I think it is quite fair. I wouldn't say that I changed my view. Only that I came to a deeper understanding of the matter and pretty much agreed with what came out. Had it been a total ban on anyone who had any gay inclination in life I would have disagreed. But then, by the Holy Spirit it seems that didn't happen and I don't think there was a real chance of it. I did not vote in your poll because it is very inadequate regarding how I would vote.

[Mrvoll]

Isn't Dan Schutte gay? I read an article that he was

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mrvoll' date='Jan 20 2006, 01:53 PM']Isn't Dan Schutte gay? I read an article that he was
[right][snapback]862061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything in this thread?

[Akalyte]

This is a "gay" country. They will still ordain gay men. They just dont care about the rules.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Jan 20 2006, 03:44 PM']This is a "gay" country. They will still ordain gay men. They just dont care about the rules.
[right][snapback]862168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is a sweeping generalization......you don't know that. That is like saying this is a "country music" country, "hip-hop" will always smell of elderberries. They don't care about music.

[Akalyte]

i said what i said because it seems like so many in the american church are masters of misenterpretation. There will be thousands of interpretations of the new documents before anything gets done. It doesnt help when some of the bishops and even cardinals lean toward the left and the gay culture.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 19 2006, 08:04 PM']So because that article was old, is that quote that Socrates pulled out the response in question?

ie
**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.**

And so they ever really banned all gays?
Also, if they're banning only the ones with deep seated homosexual tendencies, I wonder what the rationale is... cause they don't ban those with deep seated heterosexual. Is it the few years of entering into the seminary that they are afraid of with all the men? Or do they think gays are more prone to child abuse? or..
[right][snapback]861513[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This document in fact does ban all "gays" (as the term would normally be understood) from the priesthood. And this is not some new policy, but merely a reinstatement of the old (but often neglected) policy.

"Having deep-seated homosexual tendencies" or "supporting the 'gay culture'" is what is usually meant by calling someone "gay." (This would be as opposed to someone who's had any fleeting or transitory homosexual temptations or experiences in the past.)
So it would be quite inaccurate to say that this policy would ban some "gays," but allow others.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 19 2006, 08:39 PM']what's interesting is that it basically talks about not admitting sexually active men to the seminary. This has always been the rule. I don't see how some claiming to have a homosexual orientation is any different... Even outside of the seminary, people should lead chaste lives not lives that are sexually promiscuous. That applies to everyone.
[right][snapback]861542[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Read what the document says! It does not only ban those who are sexually active, but also those [b]"who present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'"[/b]

This would apply to most people who would be considered "gay."

Let's not selectively read the document to mean only what we want it to mean.

There have been many discussions of this issue on here in the past. I suggest people look them up, rather than bringing up the same things over and over again.

[N/A Gone]

no gay priests, just gay cowboys...

j/p

I think if someone is ontologically gay. (*science and specifically genetics has not truly come to the understanding if "gay" is a genetic thing, or is an early development or whatever so dont debate that) than they should realize that the priesthood could pose a challenge to them. But the same is for a heterosexual or even someone who likes wine. The thing is there are plenty of challenges for a priest and we could beat thru qualifications until no one can be one. Why? because without the grace of the spirit no one could be a priest. So, because someone is inclined towards a sin should not deter them from the priesthood for we are all inclinded towards our own demons.

now, if someone has a history of acting on their homosexual urges than they should not be considered for the priesthood. Simple as that. if they are "struggling" with it than in the proper council and fellowship we could see what happens but it would be tough. If someone is bold and accepting and living a homosexual lifestyle than they should not be priest

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Jan 20 2006, 06:25 PM']no gay priests, just gay cowboys...

j/p

I think if someone is ontologically gay. (*science and specifically genetics has not truly come to the understanding if "gay" is a genetic thing, or is an early development or whatever so dont debate that) than they should realize that the priesthood could pose a challenge to them. But the same is for a heterosexual or even someone who likes wine. The thing is there are plenty of challenges for a priest and we could beat thru qualifications until no one can be one. Why? because without the grace of the spirit no one could be a priest. So, because someone is inclined towards a sin should not deter them from the priesthood for we are all inclinded towards our own demons.

now, if someone has a history of acting on their homosexual urges than they should not be considered for the priesthood. Simple as that. if they are "struggling" with it than in the proper council and fellowship we could see what happens but it would be tough. If someone is bold and accepting and living a homosexual lifestyle than they should not be priest
[right][snapback]862386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Part of the requirements for being a good priest (I've read this from orthodox priests familiar with such things) is to be emotionally/sexually mature, and be able to relate to men and women [b]as a man[/b]. A good priest should be someone who would make a good husband and father - he should relate to his parishioners as a spiritual FATHER.

Having deep-seated homosexual tendencies usually precludes this.

(I gave a good quote I read about this on a thread some time back - maybe I can dig it up.)

[N/A Gone]

hmm...actually, unless we are appreciating sterotypes. Being homosexual would not hinder this I feel. being sexually restricted as a hetero could hinder this. Liking the red sox too much could hinder this. I agree that a homosexual would not be sexually mature. But honestly, neither is a 60 year old virgin. Not to be rude. but a priest is not sexually mature but that is another debate. You are debating here that a homosexual would not make a good father. I would disagree strongly with that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Jan 20 2006, 06:57 PM']hmm...actually, unless we are appreciating sterotypes. Being homosexual would not hinder this I feel. being sexually restricted as a hetero could hinder this. Liking the red sox too much could hinder this. I agree that a homosexual would not be sexually mature. But honestly, neither is a 60 year old virgin. Not to be rude. but a priest is not sexually mature but that is another debate. You are debating here that a homosexual would not make a good father. I would disagree strongly with that.
[right][snapback]862405[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think your totally wishing the point. (Wish I could find that quote - can't seem to find the darn thing!)

The point is not about having sex, but about one's psychological development as a person, and one's masculinity. (Whatever modern society may say to the contrary) having sexual intercourse is not necessary to one's identity as a man.

The celibate priest [b]sublimates[/b] his masculinity into the priestly life.
The ideal priest is one who could be a husband and father, but instead sublimates and channels his masculinity into service of God and the Church. He sacrifices having sex to give his masculitinity to an even higher good.
The ideal candidate for the priesthood is [b]not [/b]someone who chooses the priesthood because he does not feel he would make a good husband or father.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies are a symptom of a defective masculinity, and it is for this reason that people afflicted with such are barred from the priesthood.

(This is kind of a paraphrasing of what I remember from the quote I can't find.)

[dustthouart]

Because it needs to be said over and over: NO ONE HAS THE "RIGHT" TO BE A PRIEST.

Also, I think in some ways this is a matter of tough love. The Church has to be very stern about this to root out the gay culture in some seminaries. There has to be a very definable line. If we leave it ambiguous, then it will be exploited.