Can Ppl With Ssa Be Admitted To Seminary?

[Guest lundercovera]

at one point i was postitive this was ordered against by the Vatican, and i agreed as it could be an occassion of sin.

but here's an artical from [url="http://couragerc.net"]http://couragerc.net[/url]

[url="http://couragerc.net/SSA%20in%20the%20Seminary.htm"]http://couragerc.net/SSA%20in%20the%20Seminary.htm[/url]

[quote]SHOULD A MAN WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTIONS

BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE SEMINARY?

A Review & Critique of

Msgr. Andrew Baker and Bishop Thomas Gumbleton’s Positions in

America Magazine

    In the September 30, 2002 issue of America magazine, Msgr. Andrew Baker, from the staff of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome, argues, “if there are firmly established facts, both from an objective psychological evaluation and an examination in the external forum of past and present behavior and choices that a man does indeed suffer from SSA [Same Sex Attractions] as an ‘exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex’ (Cat. #2357), then he should not be admitted to holy orders…  It may be that a man could be healed of such a disorder and then he could be considered for admission to the seminary and possibly to holy orders, but not while being afflicted with the disorder.”

    In the same issue, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, an auxiliary bishop of Detroit, responds to Msgr. Baker’s position on the basis of his experience as a bishop for thirty years.  He asks Catholics to examine their “own experience”:  “Without being aware of it, untold numbers of people in the church have been blessed by the compassionate and healing ministry of gay[1] priests and bishops.  Ordinary common sense tells us that such ministry is of God.  It is authentic and it is valid.”

    Using a 1997 Circular Letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Baker says that a vocation is based on a “moral certitude,” founded upon positive reasons regarding the “suitability” of the candidate.  The document then mentions the fundamental reasons not to admit a candidate to Holy Orders.  “Admission may not take place if there is a prudent doubt regarding the candidate’s suitability” (Canon 1052, #3).  A prudent doubt is a doubt based on “objective and duly verified” facts (Ibid).  The Congregation advises that it would seem more appropriate to dismiss a doubtful candidate than to risk the scandal that may follow from possible future scandalous activities of such a priest.

    At this point Baker interprets the Congregation’s Circular Letter:  “The Congregation seems to suggest that even if there is only a ‘prudent doubt,’ based on objective facts about the suitability of any candidate, ‘the best and safest course of action is not to admit him to Holy Orders’ ” [emphasis added].  Baker’s opinion is that the proper ecclesiastical authority does not need “moral certitude,” but only a definite prudent doubt.  Based on this, Baker argues that having same sex attraction (SSA) is reason enough for the proper ecclesiastical authority to reject a man for Holy Orders.

    However, Baker has other reasons for objecting to candidates with SSA.  He admits that SSA can be “treated and even prevented with some degree of success,” but in his opinion, the possibility of treatment does not deal with the presence of SSA in the present decision of suitability of this man for the priesthood.

    Baker sees the “orientation” to persons of the same sex as a “disorientation,” because it tends to a corrupt end.  Competent experts need to address this disorder with the cooperation of the person.  He poses questions about the possibility of other serious problems which could be found in homosexual persons, including “substance abuse, sexual addiction, and depression.”  They will find living in the seminary “very difficult,” because they may become involved with persons to whom they are strongly attracted.  He also addresses the question of cliques among homosexual seminarians, and believes that persons with same sex tendencies can live “certain aspects of celibacy, but their commitment is significantly different from that of heterosexuals because it compromises two fundamental dimensions of celibacy.”

    Celibacy, he says, involves a sacrifice of a good for a greater good.  But the homosexual person is not making such a sacrifice in taking a vow or promise of celibacy, because he is not attracted to marriage.  The second difficulty is that the homosexual candidate cannot relate to the Church as spouse in the same way as a heterosexual candidate does.  Even if the homosexual candidate is chaste, he lacks “certain important elements due to SSA,” and this could be another reason for proper authority to have a prudent doubt about him.

    In response to Msgr. Baker, Bishop Gumbleton argues that a homosexual orientation should not be an impediment to ordination.  At the beginning of his article, Gumbleton quotes the theologian Germain Grisez:  “Homosexual men can no doubt be perfectly continent, but the charism of celibacy involves more; peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy into priestly service for the kingdom’s sake” [emphasis added].  Gumbleton reflects on his own sexuality as a heterosexual person—how he had to learn to integrate his own sexuality in all of his loving relationships, while remaining a truly celibate person: “as Grisez puts it, I arrive at a point of ‘peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy into priestly service for the kingdom’s sake.’ ”

    Gumbleton goes on to say that what is true of him as a celibate heterosexual person is also true of the celibate homosexual person, because “the celibate homosexual priest or bishop brings the same charism to the service of the church as the heterosexual and can achieve the same ‘peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy’ for priestly service.”

    Gumbleton also replies to Baker concerning the nature of the promise or vow of celibacy:  “Again, while celibacy represents a sacrifice, it is not simply a “giving up.”  It is a unique way of loving, a charism given by God to persons who are homosexual or heterosexual.  For this reason, it is absurd to suggest that the ordination of homosexual persons is invalid simply because of their sexual orientation.  Obviously God has called many gay men to the priesthood and to the episcopate throughout the whole history of the church.  Indeed, to declare all of these ordinations invalid would call into question the integrity of our whole sacramental system” [emphasis added].

    Gumbleton believes that the current sexual abuse crisis has led to scapegoating homosexual priests:  “The first step towards reversing these harsh judgments and negative feelings about gay priests and homosexual persons in general is to examine our own experience.  Without being aware of it, untold numbers of people in the church have been blessed by the compassionate and healing ministry of gay priests and bishops.  Ordinary common sense tells us that such ministry is of God.  It is authentic and it is valid.”  By identifying homosexuals as the cause of the current crisis, or an important part of it, Gumbleton argues that we fail to deal with the most basic cause of the scandalous situation:  “The radical cause was identified in 1971 in the psychological study of Catholic priests and bishops in the United States, authored by Dr. Eugene Kennedy.  This study, of course, included homosexual and heterosexual priests.  It indicated that a very large percentage of priests were seriously underdeveloped in terms of psychological maturity.”

    Gumbleton believes that lack of psychological maturity can lead priests to form inappropriate relationships with teenagers, and whether this relationship is homosexual or heterosexual, it is wrong and can even be criminal.  Thus, Gumbleton holds, the basic problem is not a problem of homosexual priests, but rather of “seriously underdeveloped priests.”  “Yet this is a problem that can be overcome.  Underdeveloped persons can be guided toward a fuller stage of maturity that will enable them to function in a psychologically healthy way.  This is just as true of the underdeveloped homosexual person as it is of the underdeveloped heterosexual person.  The important thing to work toward in the seminary and in religious formation is approving for ordination only those persons who have achieved an adequate degree of healthy psychological development.”  This applies to both homosexual and heterosexual priests and seminarians.

    Gumbleton also provides another good insight, which I know to be true from my many years of work with homosexual priests.  He quotes Bro. Jack Talbot to say that homosexuals “minister through the language of our pain, of our passion story.”  Many persons with same sex attractions, including priests and religious, have gone through an arduous process of self-knowledge.  By living out this painful process, they develop a “deeply prophetic courage.”  Again, I agree with Gumbleton’s observation.  I gave spiritual direction to one such homosexual priest, who was both a strong leader and a deeply compassionate man.

    I believe, however, that Gumbleton must recognize that the difficulties which priests with same-sex attractions experience in their stages of development as priests, are greater than those experienced by heterosexual priests.  He is right on target, however, when he says that the Church can not ignore the contributions of compassionate service made by many priests with same-sex attractions.

BRIEF CRITIQUE OF BOTH BAKER AND GUMBLETON
  Having reviewed the positions of both Baker and Gumbleton, I should like to critique each of them in conjunction with my own experiences in counseling priests with same-sex addictions for 27 years.  With regard to the scholarly approach of Monsignor Andrew Baker to the question of the ordination of men with SSA, I am not convinced by his arguments.  Same-sex attractions are much more complex than Baker describes them.  They vary in intensity, as psychological research indicates, from exclusively same-sex attractions to mixtures of same-sex and other sex inclinations.  As one practices chastity over a period of time, one experiences a diminution in the strength of same-sex attractions.  Some persons reach a stage where they are no longer seriously tempted to carnal acts with their own sex.  In still other situations, the individual is surprised by spontaneous attractions to the other sex.  Baker’s argument fails to account for the variability and flexibility of same-sex attractions.  He makes this objective disorder the most important element in the screening of candidates for seminaries and for Holy Orders.  I believe there are other more important elements which should also be considered.  We need to look at the virtues which one notes in the candidates.

  Recently, I had a conversation with an Auxiliary Bishop of a large diocese on this question.  He was really concerned that the Vatican Congregations or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops would rule that no man with same-sex attractions should be admitted to the seminary.  Representing his Ordinary who is on the same page as he is, he screens the candidates to the seminary.  He looks for three qualities in the candidates: 1) the capacity to live the life of the priesthood, which of course includes the theological and moral virtues, 2) that he is a man of conviction who firmly believes that he is called to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and 3) commitment: he is ready to commit himself to the work of preparation for the priesthood in the seminary.  This Bishop believes that he must come to know each candidate.  He does not see same-sex attractions as in itself an impediment to ordination.  He looks at the history of the whole person.  He asks, “Should this right of the Ordinary of the diocese to make a prudential judgement concerning the fitness of the candidate be taken away from him by a decree that automatically excludes a man with same-sex attractions?”

  Baker also holds that the man with same-sex attractions can not really fulfill all the requirements of celibacy.  He is not able to “give up” marriage and family, because supposedly he has not real attraction to such.  Since Gumbleton has already responded to this point, I will merely add that one should not make the same-sex attraction in the candidate the most important factor for his admission.  I have known many homosexual men who longed for marriage, wife, and children.  Such love for the other sex and for marriage resides in the highest part of the person, and they can exercise it by acts of free will.

  Again, Baker is of the opinion that a priest with SSA can not relate to the Church as Mother.  Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride, and the priest is an icon of Christ and should have a special relationship with the Church.  In response, I hold that a priest with SSA can rise above these attractions and on the higher plane of intellect, memory and will, develop a spousal relationship with the Church.

    The unspoken premise behind the opinion that men with same-sex attractions are not suitable candidates for the priesthood is the presumption that a person with same-sex attractions can not control his desires and develop a life of interior chastity.  Yet, the Church expects all of her members to strive for interior chastity, and for the unmarried, chastity is expressed through a celibate lifestyle, either as a single lay person or a vowed religious.  If we truly believe that unmarried lay people with same-sex attractions are capable of living lives of chaste celibacy, why should we automatically assume that a young man with same-sex attractions who wants to enter the seminary is incapable of the chaste celibacy which is required of him?

    Having responded to the principal objections of Baker, I turn again to Bishop Gumbleton’s position.  While I tend to agree with Eugene Kennedy’s evaluation of priests some years ago, namely priests lacking in maturity or under-developed, I also hold that helping the under-developed heterosexual priest is easier than helping the under-developed homosexual priest.  For this reason, I would give more attention in the seminary to the candidate with SSA than to the heterosexual seminarians, because I believe that the person with SSA usually has more emotional problems than the person without SSA.  With the help of a good spiritual director and in some cases a good Catholic therapist, the man with SSA can be healed over a period of time of various emotional difficulties that he has had.  At the same time, he learns to carry the cross of some emotional difficulties which remain in his life.  Gumbleton should understand that the person with SSA may continue to suffer some emotional difficulties.

    Gumbleton identifies “the most basic cause of the scandalous situation” within the Church as being the number of priests who are “seriously underdeveloped in terms of psychological maturity”.  I would add that another large factor in the current scandals is the widespread theological dissent present within many Catholic institutions, including seminaries.  Many priests have been educated in seminaries and Universities where theologians and professors disagree with the authentic teaching of the Church on marriage and human sexuality.  By separating the procreative aspect of marriage from its love-union aspect through the justification of contraception, the full meaning of human sexual intercourse was reduced to preoccupation with individual sexual “fulfillment”.  Many have embraced the teaching of pop psychologists who describe masturbation as “self-pleasuring”, and a source of relaxation.  Then comes the argument, if sex can be separated from procreation and marriage, why could not two persons of the same-sex who are attracted to each other find their happiness in an attempt at bodily union with each other?  Books such as Human Sexuality by Anthony Kosnik (Paulist Press, 1977) have reached the libraries of many Catholic seminaries and colleges, and have served to foster a massive dissent by Catholic leaders from the magisterial teaching of the Church.  A young man entering such a climate in the seminary may find it difficult to live a life of chaste celibacy when the necessity of such a lifestyle is not clearly taught, encouraged, and fostered.

    For many years, I have counseled priests with same-sex attractions.  From 1978 to 1990, I gave summer retreats to over 200 priests and brothers, as I mention in my book The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care, Ignatius Press, 1987.  These men used the spiritual resources available to lead chaste lives.  They were good priests.  Yes, some of them had had initial failings, but they had had a real conversion of heart.  This experience led me to the conviction that homosexual persons can be chaste – an experience verified over and over again in Courage, the spiritual support group founded by Cardinal Cooke in the Archdiocese of New York, in 1980.

  CONCLUSION

    I believe that we need more research into this question before we come to any conclusions.  Hopefully, those in ecclesiastical authority will consult priests, psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked with persons with same-sex attractions.  I also hope that they be willing to talk to homosexual priests themselves.  I hope this writing will be of some help to the Church.

    Years ago, at the Catholic University of America, I saw a sign on the wall of a Professor of Physics.  He was an authority on sonar, but he was also a very brilliant teacher.  On the wall, was a picture of a bumblebee.  Under the bumblebee, I read the following: “According to the laws of aero-dynamics, a creature shaped like the bumble bee is not able to fly.  But the bumble bee flies.”

 

[/quote]

so, what do you think, should men with SSA be allowed to be priests?

[vianney]

Im in seminary and ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would be like taking me (heterosexual) and having me discern my vocation to a celibate life in a house full of girls.

Dont think that you are to holy to not fall to lust, it happens at the snap of a finger.....

[Guest lundercovera]

i guess i know that it's just that i wish i could be a priest. as long as the Church says no i shouldn't be one, but i wish they could like, give me some sort of solitary confinement where i just attended seminary from there and never interacted with the rest of the seminarians.. then i'm sure i wouldn't fall into lust with someone else.

i know i'm not too holy to fall into lust, which is why i basically always agreed I shouldn't be admitted to seminary, but i just wish i could be a priest. blah.

what do you guys think of the artical? Courage is an apostalate approved by the Pontifical Council for the Family, so im not exactly always on guard against error when reading their side... so it surprised me to find an artical like this then all the sudden i was like.. hmm... maybe i COULD be a priest, but that's prolly just my own desires talking.

[mulls]

are people w/ ssa worse sinners than people without it?

[Dave]

[quote name='mulls' date='Mar 13 2004, 05:17 PM'] are people w/ ssa worse sinners than people without it? [/quote]
No, mulls, it's not that. It's the occasion of sin we have to worry about, not how sinful someone is. Take a look at what vianney wrote.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I see that he is just accepting what is taught without a reason. That is a major turn off to me to the CC on an emotional level. Plus years down the road they may change that rule since it's not an infallible teaching and he'd be out of luck by then. That's sad. But it is also pretty cool he's willing to humble himself to something even when he's not sure if it's true and when in fact it may not be true.

I"m just asking as a theoretical catholic:
If it's not a sin or not wrong, then why does it matter why not allow young men to become priests if they think they can? Isn't it just cold hearted not to?

So are we to conclude that being in an occasion to sin is a sin? Or is it just wrong in a general sense? Should we then conclude that not everything that is wrong is a sin?

Edited March 13, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 13 2004, 06:52 PM'] So are we to conclude that being in an occasion to sin is a sin? Or is it just wrong in a general sense? [/quote]
To knowingly put yourself in a near occasion of sin is indeed a sin.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='lundercovera' date='Mar 13 2004, 12:01 PM'] i guess i know that it's just that i wish i could be a priest. as long as the Church says no i shouldn't be one, but i wish they could like, give me some sort of solitary confinement where i just attended seminary from there and never interacted with the rest of the seminarians.. then i'm sure i wouldn't fall into lust with someone else.

i know i'm not too holy to fall into lust, which is why i basically always agreed I shouldn't be admitted to seminary, but i just wish i could be a priest. blah.

what do you guys think of the artical? Courage is an apostalate approved by the Pontifical Council for the Family, so im not exactly always on guard against error when reading their side... so it surprised me to find an artical like this then all the sudden i was like.. hmm... maybe i COULD be a priest, but that's prolly just my own desires talking. [/quote]
God's calling you to a different vocation brother.

Here is a resource:
[url="http://www.couragerc.net/"]http://www.couragerc.net/[/url]
[url="http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html"]http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html[/url]


Be sure to pray and spend a lot of time in adoration.

God has a plan for you, it might not be the seminary... I wanted to be a priest, but I was affraid that I would break a vow.

You are in my prayers.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote]I see that he is just accepting what is taught without a reason. That is a major turn off to me to the CC on an emotional level. [/quote]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken, he is asking for reason on this board.


[quote]Plus years down the road they may change that rule since it's not an infallible teaching and he'd be out of luck by then. [/quote]

No he wouldn't. His ssa could change. I know people who didn't enter the priesthood until their 40's.

[quote]That's sad. But it is also pretty cool he's willing to humble himself to something even when he's not sure if it's true and when in fact it may not be true.[/quote]

It's great that he asks and has faith in the Church that Christ left for him.


[quote]I"m just asking as a theoretical catholic:
If it's not a sin or not wrong, then why does it matter why not allow young men to become priests if they think they can? Isn't it just cold hearted not to?[/quote]

[b]Proverbs 16:25 [/b]Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!


[quote] Should we then conclude that not everything that is wrong is a sin?[/quote]

Please start reading the bible. How can you conclude anything unless you know what is in the Scriptures? To conclude something you must have an understanding of it. When I say that your arguements are "philosophical", it's because you appear to not know the bible and say things that contradict the bible.

[b]1 John 5:17[/b]
[u]All wrongdoing is sin,[/u] but there is sin that is not deadly.



God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
ironmonk

Edited March 14, 2004 by ironmonk

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='lundercovera' date='Mar 13 2004, 10:01 AM'] what do you guys think of the artical?  Courage is an apostalate approved by the Pontifical Council for the Family, so im not exactly always on guard against error when reading their side... so it surprised me to find an artical like this then all the sudden i was like.. hmm... maybe i COULD be a priest, but that's prolly just my own desires talking. [/quote]
Even though Courage is approved you still have to be careful. Even some of the best organizations have bad people in them. I know of someone who went to a SSA priest who was a member of Courage and was told that it was ok for him do act on his attractions and desires so long as he went to confession. (Of course this guy was also looking for someone to approve of what he wanted to do and probably sought out the most liberal person he could find....)

You have my prayers. I know that in your situation I probably would not have the courage and will power to remain chaste. I am so proud of you for all of your efforts! Your courage and dertermination to remain chaste and faithful is beautiful. I think of you and pray for often. God Bless you!

[Guest lundercovera]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 13 2004, 05:52 PM'] I see that he is just accepting what is taught without a reason. That is a major turn off to me to the CC on an emotional level. Plus years down the road they may change that rule since it's not an infallible teaching and he'd be out of luck by then. That's sad. But it is also pretty cool he's willing to humble himself to something even when he's not sure if it's true and when in fact it may not be true.

I"m just asking as a theoretical catholic:
If it's not a sin or not wrong, then why does it matter why not allow young men to become priests if they think they can? Isn't it just cold hearted not to?

So are we to conclude that being in an occasion to sin is a sin? Or is it just wrong in a general sense? Should we then conclude that not everything that is wrong is a sin? [/quote]
i accept it with a reason: i know what the Bride of Christ teaches, i should not pursue a relationship with a man no matter how much i want to because any relations between us would not be open to life. the same reasons a Catholic would not do any of the following things:

commit adultury
use contraception
mastur____
look at porn

i believe in life, i believe in sex as a sacred gift from God through which He allows us to participate in His creation of new life. any sex that does not do that is sinful, and i believe that with all my heart and cherish it as true and God-given and FREEDOM-giving. because by the virtues of self-mastery we are taught inner freedom.

and also, it is sinful to disobey the Church. i'm a guest in the Lord's house, He has given an earthly steward to watch over that house, if that earthy steward says "only use the guest towels in the bathroom" i'm not gonna use the regular towells, even though they could get my hands just as dry.

is it cold hearted? no, because all vocations are vocations of love. maybe in my single vocation i will develope a more personal relationship with my Guardian Angel and ultimately God because i dont put my energy into romantic relationships.

[BLAZEr]

Undercover,

I've said this to you before, I think, but ultimately, the jury is still out as to whether a person with SSA would be admitted to a seminary. Obviously some bishops and seminaries would say "No, absolutely not" and others would say "Yes, with reservations" and still others "Sure, no problem." I wouldn't say that we could claim any concrete ideological lines on this issue. I have spoken with very traditional, conservative priests, bishops, and seminary formations staff who think that it would be possible for a person with SSA to be admitted to the Seminary and eventually ordained a priest under certain circumstances.

Fr. Groeschel himself has mentioned that he has helped some seminarians with SSA to learn to live chastely. He says that what makes a person with SSA a successful candidate for the seminary depends on how much and to what degree they associate their identity with their Sexual attraction. He also says that a person with SSA who has demonstrated that they can live chastely (that includes no porn and masturbation) is a better candidate than one who has those sexual compulsions.

What it comes down to is simply this: If God desires you to be his priest, and you desire it as well, then God will allow for the Grace you need to follow this vocation. In the meantime, the task is to pray, hope, and don't worry. God will provide you with a healthy way to live the vocation he is calling you to.

[Guest lundercovera]

didn't the Vatican release a letter reccomending against it? i would think, then, as a matter of obedience, seminaries should not let us in, correct?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='lundercovera' date='Mar 14 2004, 01:48 AM'] didn't the Vatican release a letter reccomending against it?  i would think, then, as a matter of obedience, seminaries should not let us in, correct? [/quote]
Correct.

It's a shame that so many priests in America seem to forget about their vow of obedience (in regards to other things such as abuses in the Mass for "pastoral" reasons)


Your Servant,
ironmonk

Edited March 14, 2004 by ironmonk

[BLAZEr]

[quote name='lundercovera' date='Mar 13 2004, 11:48 PM'] didn't the Vatican release a letter reccomending against it?  i would think, then, as a matter of obedience, seminaries should not let us in, correct? [/quote]
Yes and No.

There was a letter released in the 1960's to Bishops relating to a discussion of Canon Law that said: 'Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

This was not an "order" from the Vatican, but a letter meant for Bishops to consider and discuss. It did not come up at the Second Vatican Council, and was not definitively decided. We have to remember that the understanding of Same Sex Attraction was not very well understood in the 1960's.

In 1981, the Code of Canon Law was revised and promulgated by John Paul II. There are no specific prohibitions against it there either.

On May 16, 2002, Cardina Jorge Medina Estevez, the Secretatary for the Congregation of Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments stated in response to a dubium (question) sent by an American bisho that "Ordination to the diaconate or priesthood of persons with homosexual tendencies is absolutely unadvisable and imprudent, and from a pastoral point of view, extremely risky."

This is a prudential recommendation, obviously. He is not saying that the Vatican will forbid permission for the ordination of a person with Same Sex Attraction.

Unless Ironmonk has another letter in mind, and if so he should provide a link to it, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been one since that time. There certainly has not been one that would carry juridical weight.

I am not suggesting that the Church should ordain those with SSA, however, I would like us to refrain from saying something that the Church DOES NOT SAY.

It's one thing to share our opinions, it's another thing to share our opinions as if they were the Church's teachings, unless we are backing them up with evidence of the Church's teachings.