Vatican Reaffirms Ban On Homosexual Seminarians

[Socrates]

Whether or not most homosexual priests molest children, the Church is right in banning homosexuals and those with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies from seminaries.
Those with suffering from disordered sexual conditions do not belong in the priesthood, period.

[FreeSoul]

[quote]If you wish to hide from the truth that is your choice, but a significant portion of the so called "pedophila" cases were homosexual priests and teenage boys, NOT little kids.[/quote]

At that time the psychosexual development was not looked at in an open and healthy way. It's hard enough to come out today, so really I think this has less to do with the fact that they were gay, and more to do with the fact that they were sexually stunted by the climate. I doubt in a culture where people can openly discuss their orientation would these kinds of things be going on.

We should also be careful when attributing the source of abuse to denied sexual urges, rather than power, which is what abuse/rape (sexual, emotional or physical) is ultimately about.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1548862' date='May 29 2008, 09:39 PM']Whether or not most homosexual priests molest children, the Church is right in banning homosexuals and those with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies from seminaries.
Those with suffering from disordered sexual conditions do not belong in the priesthood, period.[/quote]
That's the truth!

[thessalonian]

As I recall there were clauses in the policy that said if a man remained celibate for three years who had homosexual involvment he could be ordained. So I think there is some alowance for one who had to sort some things out. But the preisthood is not a right, it's an obligation and it is under the authority of the Church as to whether you may be a preist or not. If you are open and the Church is not it is their perogative. Is it right or fair? God put them in charge and so the authority the excercise is what it is. The metaphore of the preist as the groom/christ is distorted accroding to theology of the body and so therefore it does damage to the nature of the preisthood to allow those who have deep seated homosexual tendancies to be ordained. This is not the same matter as with women. The ordination "takes". But again it damages the understanding of what a priest is.

[Aloysius]

That clause was commonly misreported; it indicates that if one has a transitional developmental problem with their sexual orientation, then if it has been corrected for three years (not merely remained celibate, but that they developed proper sexual attraction) they could be ordained. Those who have a deep seated exclusive homosexual attraction are barred even if they are celibate. That is my reading of the document, I believe I quoted it earlier on in the thread.

like I said before, the sacrifice of celibacy is to be a pure sacrifice, it is to be the sacrifice of something good. sacrificing something evil does not qualify for the supernatural status of the sacrifice of priestly celibacy, it is the natural thing you're required to do anyway. a priest cannot live the virtue of celibacy by giving up gay sex, it has to be giving up natural heterosexual sex and procreation; and to give something up you must first desire it.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1550932' date='May 31 2008, 02:16 PM']like I said before, the sacrifice of celibacy is to be a pure sacrifice, it is to be the sacrifice of something good. sacrificing something evil does not qualify for the supernatural status of the sacrifice of priestly celibacy, it is the natural thing you're required to do anyway. a priest cannot live the virtue of celibacy by giving up gay sex, it has to be giving up natural heterosexual sex and procreation; and to give something up you must first desire it.[/quote]

Brilliantly stated!

[Socrates]

[quote name='FreeSoul' post='1549920' date='May 30 2008, 06:59 PM']At that time the psychosexual development was not looked at in an open and healthy way. It's hard enough to come out today, so really I think this has less to do with the fact that they were gay, and more to do with the fact that they were sexually stunted by the climate. I doubt in a culture where people can openly discuss their orientation would these kinds of things be going on.

We should also be careful when attributing the source of abuse to denied sexual urges, rather than power, which is what abuse/rape (sexual, emotional or physical) is ultimately about.[/quote]
The increased "openness" in our culture regarding sex and "sexual orientation," etc., has hardly led to any decrease in sexual perversions and crimes, among "gays" or "straights."

And are you suggesting that things would have been better, had only seminarians been allowed to freely act on their sexual urges?

And many of the problem seminaries had homosexual cultures that were hardly hidden - the infamous "pink palaces."

The problem is not celibacy, but people entering seminaries who had disordered sexuality to begin with, and homosexuality being winked at or even encouraged, rather than dealt with seriously.

[Madtown Sem.]

My seminarian brother Dave has a pretty good analogy: Would it be a good idea for a heterosexual man to be placed in an environment made up entirely of women his age, who are interested in all of the same things, living together. That's essentially what would be happening if homosexual men were admitted to seminary.