Vatican Reaffirms Ban On Homosexual Seminarians

[Alycin]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1535790' date='May 21 2008, 01:29 AM']hmm, i guess. bear with my knowledge of catholiscism here. is being in a seminary the only way to become a priest? cause if it is then isnt that something like me saying
"this club does not discriminate against short people in any way, and they can be members of our club. however the only way to join this group is to be 6 feet tall."[/quote]

That's not what people are saying at all. They can't be "members of the club". I *think* but I'm not *positive* that there has been talk of not ordaining gay men or men with SSA at all. It may have been put into order already. I'm not sure.

And the church isn't about not being discriminatory. The church wants everyone to be a part of it, but it's Christ's church, and the church isn't going to change to appease people.

[Jaime]

Okaaay so here's something interesting. No matter how many times myths get corrected, they just keep resurfacing


Homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely different things and in no way related.



In answer to the first question by our visiting non-catholic,

If a seminarian can demonstrate self mastery for two years (stays chaste) then it is possible for them to enter seminary. This then becomesa matter between the candidate and their spiritual director.

If someone has no mastery over their sexual impulses (regardless of attraction) they should not become a priest.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1535802' date='May 21 2008, 12:50 AM']Homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely different things and in no way related.[/quote]

Nobody said they were. What is your point?

Are you suggesting that there are no homosexuals who are pedophiles?

I don't really see your point.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' post='1535530' date='May 20 2008, 08:51 PM']I read [url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58524"]this article[/url] at CWN, and it doesn't seem just. For a devout and celibate Catholic, who is also homosexual to be banned from partaking in religious orders seems hypocritical, seeing as all people are sinners. Please correct me if I'm wrong.[/quote]
I support the Church's ban on the ordination of men afflicted with homosexual desires.

[Aloysius]

there is also the nature of celibacy to consider.

during lent, we are asked to give up things which are good in and of themselves for the greater good of the sacrifice of those things. often we give up bad things as well, but if you give up a bad thing during lent you can't exactly go back to it after Easter as is the case with most lenten sacrifices.

the sacrifice of celibacy is the same idea: it is a pure and good sacrifice. giving up the possibility of a homosexual relationship is something you have to do whether or not you're taking on the supernatural state of clerical celibacy (just like a sacrifice that you'd have to continue even after lent). no, in order to properly engage in the act of celibacy, you must be able to sacrifice the possibility of a wife and kids; that must be what you see as your sacrifice. something that is good in and of itself but you choose not to have for the greater good of the kingdom of God.

celibacy outside of the clerical state for these individuals is not to be taken as an extraordinary sacrifice, but as the moral duty of those individuals, as an ordinary sacrifice the way everyone sacrifices by not stealing or not fornicating.

if a man who once experienced same sex attraction wanted to become a priest, then in order to make a good and holy celibacy he must come to have a desire for a wife and children and then choose to sacrifice it. if for at least three years prior to ordination to the diaconate he finds he has overcome the disordered desire and is truly sacrificing the good thing for the greater (rather than the bad thing for the greater, an equation that is far too lopsided to produce good or healthy priests) he can be permitted into a seminary according to the document.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535812' date='May 21 2008, 02:02 AM']Nobody said they were. What is your point?

Are you suggesting that there are no homosexuals who are pedophiles?

I don't really see your point.[/quote]

No I'm suggesting you don't read the posts very well. The topic is on the ban on homosexuals in seminary. yet, pedophilia has been brought up more than a few times.

so yeah clarification was needed.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535812' date='May 21 2008, 02:02 AM']Nobody said they were. What is your point?[/quote]


Actually several people on PM think that pedophilia and homosexuality are inextricably linked and go to great lengths to convince others of the same, despite the mountains of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Alycin

[Jaime]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1535821' date='May 21 2008, 02:17 AM']Actually several people on PM think that pedophilia and homosexuality are inextricably linked and go to great lengths to convince others of the same, despite the mountains of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.[/quote]

YOU


you I like

[Alycin]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1535829' date='May 21 2008, 02:29 AM']YOU
you I like[/quote]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1535795' date='May 20 2008, 11:37 PM']That's not what people are saying at all. They can't be "members of the club". I *think* but I'm not *positive* that there has been talk of not ordaining gay men or men with SSA at all. It may have been put into order already. I'm not sure.

And the church isn't about not being discriminatory. The church wants everyone to be a part of it, but it's Christ's church, and the church isn't going to change to appease people.[/quote]

oh i get that the church has rules, and i respect that. i just thought people had said there was nothing against homosexual priests, but that they could not attend seminary.

and disregarding the negative connotations of "discriminate" that is kind of the appropriate word. thank you though!
and good job on your next post regarding homosexuals and paedophilia, you knwo i agree with you here as well.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1535802' date='May 20 2008, 11:50 PM']Okaaay so here's something interesting. No matter how many times myths get corrected, they just keep resurfacing


Homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely different things and in no way related.



In answer to the first question by our visiting non-catholic,

If a seminarian can demonstrate self mastery for two years (stays chaste) then it is possible for them to enter seminary. This then becomesa matter between the candidate and their spiritual director.

If someone has no mastery over their sexual impulses (regardless of attraction) they should not become a priest.[/quote]

thanks for the helpful post! that makes a lot more sense now.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Jesus_lol

[Aloysius]

I believe it is three years, and it is not merely that they are chaste for that long but that a transitory problem of their orientation has been corrected, from my understanding

from the document:
"If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of 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."

correct me if I'm wrong. I originally thought it was merely three years of chastity required just based upon the reporting done on it, but it seems to me this only allows for those who are in a situation in which the homosexual tendencies can be overcome because they are part of a transitory and not lifelong problem to be ordained, but that those with continuous lifelong exclusive homosexual tendencies are not to be ordained. aside from the "temptation of the seminary" argument, the deeper reason I see for this is the fact that celibacy consists of giving up something which is good for the sake of something which is a greater good. no one ought to use clerical celibacy to cement themselves in a lifestyle to avoid some evil sexual impulse they have; in order to really engage in the sacrifice of priestly celibacy you must first order your sexual desire towards its proper object and then sacrifice that.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1535815' date='May 21 2008, 01:06 AM']No I'm suggesting you don't read the posts very well. The topic is on the ban on homosexuals in seminary. yet, pedophilia has been brought up more than a few times.

so yeah clarification was needed.[/quote]

Because homosexual priests were committing pedophilia. What. Is. Your. Point?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535916' date='May 21 2008, 08:11 AM']Because homosexual priests were committing pedophilia. What. Is. Your. Point?[/quote]

that. Ignorant. People. Like. You. Perpetuate. Misinformation.

If you ask the Church about the ban of pedophiles, they will say "no more not ever". Then ask them if there are priests in the Church who are attracted to men but are good and holy priests. Using the two terms synonomously is wrong.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1535650' date='May 20 2008, 11:58 PM']How on earth is homosexuality an oxymoron?[/quote]
Sexuality is intrinsically oriented toward the "other," the opposite sex. "Homosexuality" makes no sense, because sexuality is a matter of complementary sexes.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1535996' date='May 21 2008, 08:05 AM']that. Ignorant. People. Like. You. Perpetuate. Misinformation.

If you ask the Church about the ban of pedophiles, they will say "no more not ever". Then ask them if there are priests in the Church who are attracted to men but are good and holy priests. Using the two terms synonomously is wrong.[/quote]

Who used the two terms synonomously???? Certainly not me. You made a statement and I asked you what you meant by that statement. I genuinely did not understand the statement. I asked you a QUESTION. And from that QUESTION you are accusing me of being ignorant and perpetuating false information. (???????)

Dude, something is wrong with your thought process.