Vatican Reaffirms Ban On Homosexual Seminarians

[IrishSalesian]

I like this thread, and would like to add something, however the seminary firewall has a block on the third page of this thread. Anyone care to send me a message with a summary? Then I can tell my opinion and a personal story reinforcing my stance.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1535650' date='May 20 2008, 10:58 PM']Could the ridiculous "homosexuals are boy molesters" subject be left out of this? That's like saying "all heterosexual men molest girls."

BTW, I hat.e the headline of that article. "There never was a pedophilia crisis"? What a flat out lie. There WAS a pedophilia crisis. After all, the priests were not abusing FULL GROWN men, now, were they? Is the Church trying to blame homosexuals for the pedophile priests?
How on earth is homosexuality an oxymoron?[/quote]

Like most people today I do not think you understand the actual, classical definition of the word "pedophile", a true pedophile is one that attack children before puberty. There is a link between the two, like the like between Marijuana users and Cocaine users, thou many today deny it. Yet if we are to broaden the definition of pedophile to mean one that sexual abuses underage teens then the like between this form of 'pedophilia' and homosexuality is greater.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1535814' date='May 21 2008, 02:03 AM']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.[/quote]
[quote name='Aloysius' post='1535837' date='May 21 2008, 03:01 AM']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.[/quote]

I have never heard this put better... Thank you.

[Jaime]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536098' date='May 21 2008, 11:25 AM']It's really sad, but there are reasons why these very special men are expected to be in good physical and mental health, the job is just that hard. There's no point in putting stress on a bridge that wasn't up to code to begin with. The stresses of priestly ministry magnify any underlying problems a person may have. Fighting SSA is almost like a full time occupation. We deserve priests who can devote themselves to us, and not to trying to hide who they are, or fighting internal demons.[/quote]

I'm not a priest but I find this to be silly. Fighting SSA is almost like a full time occupation? What is that based on? that suggests that a priest who is attracted to women has it easier. And honestly I don't know how you justify this at all.

We need priests who are mentally sound, I agree. But to say that we deserve priests who aren't fighting "internal demons" or dysfunction is looking for a sinless priest.

[Alycin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1536487' date='May 21 2008, 05:05 PM']Like most people today I do not think you understand the actual, classical definition of the word "pedophile", a true pedophile is one that attack children before puberty. There is a link between the two, like the like between Marijuana users and Cocaine users, thou many today deny it. Yet if we are to broaden the definition of pedophile to mean one that sexual abuses underage teens then the like between this form of 'pedophilia' and homosexuality is greater.[/quote]

[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]


See Madame V? We tried to nip it in the bud before it got started, but I suppose it was only a matter of time...

[XIX]

You know...



all this time I thought the expression was "nip it in the butt."

[Alycin]

[quote name='XIX' post='1536527' date='May 21 2008, 06:14 PM']You know...
all this time I thought the expression was "nip it in the butt."[/quote]


I used to think the term was "butt naked" as opposed to "buck naked"

[Jaime]

I think the worst faux pas was made by the Vatican
[quote]n light of this abundant teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to dwell on all questions in the area of affectivity and sexuality that require an attentive discernment during the entire period of formation. Rather, it contains norms concerning a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have [b]deep-seated homosexual tendencies[/b].[/quote]


I just think they could have chosen better

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1536524' date='May 21 2008, 05:12 PM']See Madame V? We tried to nip it in the bud before it got started, but I suppose it was only a matter of time...[/quote]

I would not agree the two to be 'inextricably linked' that would falsely assert that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that the terms could be used interchangeably. Just as Pot smokers and cocaine dopers are not 'inextricably linked', but they have many similarities and once you commit one its much easier to commit the other.

And in this since, there is a link between the homosexuality and pedophiles, even more so if we are to except the modern terminology of pedophilia, or at very least a logical argument can be made there is a link between the two. Many homosexuals can trace the start of their same sex attraction back to when someone of the same sex took indecent liberties which they [i]'consented too'[/i] with or they were sexual abuse them.

[Alycin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1536562' date='May 21 2008, 06:44 PM']I would not agree the two to be 'inextricably linked' that would falsely assert that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that the terms could be used interchangeably. Just as Pot smokers and cocaine dopers are not 'inextricably linked', but they have many similarities and once you commit one its much easier to commit the other.

And in this since, there is a link between the homosexuality and pedophiles, even more so if we are to except the modern terminology of pedophilia, or at very least a logical argument can be made there is a link between the two. Many homosexuals can trace the start of their same sex attraction back to when someone of the same sex took indecent liberties which they [i]'consented too'[/i] with or they were sexual abuse them.[/quote]


I have no desire to hash this out with you again HERE as we've already done it in another thread.

Beside that, we're pulling this thread off topic.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Alycin

[KnightofChrist]

Nor do I am very tired, I merely wished to point out that 'inextricably linked' would be incorrect, it would be like saying they were conjoined twins, when I believe the two would be more like cousins, or something to that nature.

The peace and love of God be with you dear sister in Christ!

Edited May 21, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Veridicus]

I think the ban is probably the best possible solution to a hairy situation. In a perfect world, these young men who felt a calling to the priesthood would be graced with perfect self-control. I think we have seen in actuality how difficult this has been for members of the clergy with deepset homosexual tendencies to control themselves. In the end it has led to the scandalization of the local Parish, the episcopate, the wider Church, the Vatican, and [i]most importantly[/i] the teenage boys victimized.

This sexual deviation on the part of a minority of the clergy has hurt the Church on so many levels that perhaps the Vatican adopting a firm stance that attempts to 'remove the near occasion' of sin at the seminary level and later in the unique position of the priest to his young parishoners. It may not be the most politically correct answer and in truth I would also say that it implies a somewhat fatalist view of the hope for grace for people with deeply-set homosexual orientation. But what the Church does not need in this world of wolves is more internal decay for the secular beasts to devour.

That's my thoughts...

[CatherineM]

hot stuff-the reason I said it was like a full time job is that is how it was described to me by a member of Courage, someone who was fighting SSA, he said sometimes minute by minute, trying to maintain his chastity. I don't have that struggle, so I can't imagine how hard it must be.

We are all given crosses, some crosses are just heavier than others. I'm not looking for sinless priests, far from it, but I guess I think the job is hard enough without them starting off with a heavy burden.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535659' date='May 21 2008, 12:03 AM']Permitting even celibate homosexuals into the seminary is not a wise decision. This would be like a recovering alcoholic going to work in a bar.[/quote]

It worked for Sam on [i][/i]Cheers[i][/i].

...sorry, just had to say it.

[picchick]

This is totally off topic but I am going to say it anyway.

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535692' date='May 21 2008, 12:25 AM']This **is** a homosexual issue. I don't know how you can suggest that the molestations of men against boys was not homosexual in nature! I remember at the time these stories were breaking the internet was full of discussions about how this wasn't "a gay problem" but rather "the crimes of some sick men" and that these molestations were just more proof that the Church needs to let priests have wives.

Right. Because a straight priest is going to act out on his sexual urges with...boys?? No. A straight priest would act out on his sexual urges with women. Grown women.

These rapers and molesters were homosexuals, pure and simple. Many of the priests were involved in underground gay groups and many were well-known to have been active in the gay community and frequenting gay bars for decades. While other priests and Bishops were covering for them and moving them from parish to parish.[/quote]
No. To say that they were all homosexuals are wrong. You alluded to that in your first paragraph:
[quote]I don't know how you can suggest that the molestations of men against boys was not homosexual in nature![/quote]
Then you say "many". As Jamie tried to clarify: they were Pedophiles. Just because you sexual abuse little boys does not make you gay. Straight men abuse boys. Pedophiles, regardless of sexual orientation, abuse children...it does not matter their gender.
AND straight men who are pedophiles WILL abuse little boys. Don't try to argue with me on that one because I have heard people's stories.
Mind you yes, homosexual pedophiles have a GREATER chance of abusing boys but straight men abuse boys too.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that allowing homosexual priests into the seminary HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEX SCANDALS. It is the fact that PEDOPHILES were allowed to become priests.

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535695' date='May 21 2008, 12:26 AM']The number of priests molesting girls was incredibly smaller in number than those of molestations against boys.

Stop trying to re-write history, please.[/quote]
What do you mean by this post? It seems that you are disregarding the fact that girls were also abused? Please do not disregard the fact that girls too were abused. It does not matter how many girls were abused vs. boys. They were abused. Period. That is all that matters. Furthermore, the fact that girls were abused shows that this was not a homosexual problem as well. It shows that it was a PEDOPHILIA problem.


I see NO WHERE in that statement by Kitty that she was re-writing history. I did not see anything in her posts regarding the Sex Scandal as re-writing history. You on the other hand do by stating that.