Homosexuality & The Priesthood

[AdAltareDei]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1859169' date='May 5 2009, 09:57 PM']Assumption
Contraception
Confession
Civil unions
Women priests
[b]Celibate gay men being barred from the priesthood[/b][/quote]

Yeah, that one is so stupid. If they've taken a vow of celibacy who cares. The situation is no different to a heterosexual priest. People say "but it's a disorder. Just like people with mental issues or a handicap can't become priests". But the difference is all those things impact on how efficiently the man can exercise his ministry. Being a homosexual struggling for chastity isn't going to interfer with your priestly ministry any more than being heterosexual struggling for chastity will.


I still don't get this Assumption thing....
If a physical body was assumed into heaven, that means heavens a physical place.
I always just imagined it as some abstract union of our soul with God who is a spirit, not physical being.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1859169' date='May 6 2009, 04:57 AM']Celibate gay men being barred from the priesthood[/quote]

When "That Document" came out, I completely didn't get it. It seemed blatantly unfair. I had to really really [i]think[/i] and re-assess everything I thought I knew about homosexuality - as in dismantle my entire structure and then piece it together again - before it made sense.

But when it did, oh boy! I'm glad I had to go through it (it wasn't easy and I almost pulled my rosary apart in frustration); it consequently gave me a much better understanding of human sexuality and how this is such an intrinsic part of the whole person.

Having the Church as a/the "fixed point" in such matters means that the individual process of learning about the faith and its teachings is given a direction. Without it I think I'd just be floating, not knowing what was up or down. It's like being told "Here's a plank of wood; nail it to the wall and make sure it's true." At least with a clear Church teaching one end of the plank has already been fixed.

[CatherineM]

I think barring gay men from the priesthood is in reaction to the perception that they had become too ingrained in the priesthood, especially in seminaries. When dealing with something as large as the clergy abuse scandal is, and it is far from over legally, there is often the reaction to amputate. Even though many of the pedophile priests weren't homosexual, it was felt that the atmosphere that allowed homosexuals to hide in the priesthood also allowed pedophiles to hide. There may come a time when they change their mind about this. It will have to be after this generation of priests has reestablished itself as healthy in their sexuality and masculinity.

Two things stand out to me in this discussion. I went to law school with a guy who wanted to enter seminary. My former pastor was the vocations director at the time, and turned him down. Now Oklahoma has a pretty big priest shortage, so that really puzzled me. I asked him why, and he was very hesitant to discuss it with me, but eventually told me, that he believed from the questions he was being asked, that he was turned down because he wasn't gay. I had no way to really know if he was telling me the truth. I mean he might have had some kind of psychological issues that I didn't know about. It couldn't have been his grades, or he wouldn't have gotten into, let alone graduate from law school. Plus, the stress of law school uncovered a bunch of underlying psychological issues for many of my classmates, including two suicides, so I figured if that was it, I'd have seen some of it. He seemed as sound a man as I had ever met.

I was upset enough about it to discuss it with my current pastor at the time. He told me that he had attended seminary right after WWII. They were packed then. He said they had intermural football and baseball teams, and it was a very male atmosphere. He said that he had visited his old seminary not long before this conversation (1984), and it was totally different. He said when he was in seminary, it looked and felt like a regular all-male college. When he had gone to visit to see a seminarian that was from his old parish that he had kind of mentored, he said it seemed like a training school for harem eunuchs.

It may not seem that important for our priests to exude a real sense of masculinity, but I'll use an example of something I saw on the bus today. There was a couple with two little boys in a double stroller. The boys were I'd guess 2 and 3 years old. The dad was playing a slap game with the little one who was in front facing his seat. He was having the kid try to slap him, and daddy kept ducking back and forth. It was almost like keep away. I know any form of hitting is frowned upon today, but it was more like they were playing patty-cake, and he was learning some hand to eye coordination. After we got off the bus, I commented to my husband that those two boys aren't going to ever have gender identity issues. He didn't understand. His illness prevents him from really "getting" body language, so I had to explain. These boys first of all, had a dad who actually seemed to enjoy spending time with them. The toys in the bottom of their stroller were firetrucks and bulldozers. I told him that when we were that age, male roll models looked like the Marlboro Man. Now they are metrosexuals.

Seminarians need good role models just like every other young man does. Priests are supposed to be our male role models. How can they do that, when they don't know really what being a male means. Our society has tried to feminized men because they are stereotyped as oppressive in the same way that extreme left wingers try to stereotype Christians as oppressors. Maybe the church is going overboard by banning celibate gay men, but they have to swing the pendulum back in the right direction, and this is one of the ways that the Church thinks may contribute to the solution. Sometimes a parent says, "no, because I said so." Sometimes parents know something that is above their child's understanding, and the child should just accept it. That's how I feel about this. I am not privy to all the information that the Vatican developed during this process. I have to accept that they know what they are doing, and respond with obedience.

[AdAltareDei]

Hey Catherine,

Theres a few objections I have with your post. The first thing is that if God is calling a man to the priesthood, regardless of his sexuality, I think he should be able to answer that call. You mention that it may be a reaction to the pedophile crisis. First, thanks for acknowledging that pedophiles are both heterosexual and homosexual. Theres nothing more aggrivating than people claiming every single pedophile is also a homosexual. The naivety and ignorance of some people astounds me.
I don't know what you mean about the same atmosphere that allowed homosexuals to hide allowing pedophiles to hide. Lets face it, the abuse scandal went on so long because we had bishops who moved priests from parish to parish rather than passing on reports of sexual misconduct onto the civil authorities. And even if you were right, peoples perceptions and "what was felt" is far from what the reality is and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to deny ordination to men living in accordance with the Churches teaching.

And the importance of priests being masculine? Well I disagree, I think that a fiery zeal to save souls is the most important thing. But there are a number of problems with your contention. What exactly is masculine? And what about homosexuals that are masculine? Or heterosexuals that aren't particularly "manly"? Do you think that all gay people are feminine? Or that all straight people are masculine? Surely not. My experience has taught me otherwise, I'm sure yours has too.

I'm sorry, but I don't think an important question when discerning a vocation is "how far can you kick a football?"

There's no reason why a celibate homosexual can't exercise priestly ministry just as well as a heterosexual could. If he's orthodox, passionate and embraces chastity then whats the difference?
Even if one believes it's a mental disorder it's not one like depression or bipolar that's going to negatively effect the man carrying out his duties to his flock. I fail to see any difference between a celibate straight priest and a celibate homosexual priest.

It's just downright unfair and discriminatory.

When I was a little kid I always wanted to be a priest, but now I'm supposed to believe that it's not a valid vocation for me. Because of something I didn't choose and something I can't change.

Now I believe my vocation is to spend my life with another man and raise disadvantaged children together, but that's not a valid vocation either apparently.
I'd like to ask the hierarchy, what is my vocation then?

Edited May 6, 2009 by AdAltareDei

[LouisvilleFan]

Gay men have never been barred from the priesthood. If you look at the wording of the document, it is specifically referring to men with strong inclinations to homosexuality that will basically be as significant stumbling block to living out their promise of celibacy. Anyone with a strong, overpowering sex drive that hasn't been tamed through prayer and exercising self-control is unfit for public ministry. The document was specifically addressing homosexuality because it's the current issue. People read into it more than it said... those conclusions cannot be reached from the text.

That said, it does talk about how the calling to marriage is in some ways a "prerequisite" to being qualified for priesthood. In other words, priests should be men who would make holy husbands and fathers, so that they are making a legitimate sacrifice in refusing one holy vocation for another. Plus, the priesthood is not as an alternative if you're not "good enough." Both are very high callings, as following Christ in any shape or form is a very high and serious calling. Still, the documents stops short of an outright ban of homosexuals from the priesthood.

Edited May 6, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1859428' date='May 6 2009, 05:15 AM']I'd like to ask the hierarchy, what is my vocation then?[/quote]

That question is for God, not "the hierarchy"

[CatherineM]

AdAltareDei-I also find it aggravating when people talk about all pedophiles being homosexual. That doesn't do anyone any good. What I meant about the atmosphere that allowed homosexuals to hide also allowed pedophiles to hide is that there was a time when seminaries or orders were known more for secrecy than piety. As a purely hypothetical example, let's say that a formation director at a seminary was known for seducing/abusing seminarians. If most of the seminarians were gay, he would have more to select from, and if anyone tried to blow the whistle on him, he could just tell his superiors that the kid was gay and get him booted from seminary. The idea that everything should be secret to the "brotherhood" is just the way these things can fester for a long time.

I read a story about a National Prayer Breakfast when Jimmy Carter was president. He was talking to the founder of one of the biggest/original gay churches in the country, and this minister asked Carter why gays couldn't in the military or in high security clearance jobs. Carter replied that having that kind of secret makes one a security risk. Someone from the other side finds out, and then blackmails you into betraying your country. This gay minister asked then what about gays who are allowed to be out of the closet, and didn't have anything to hide. Carter sat for a minute thinking and said that would be okay then to him. That was a pretty big leap at the time, especially for a Naval Academy graduate.

The difference with priests though, is that the common parishioner is going to automatically assume that a priest who is publicly gay, even if he is celibate, is going to violate his vows. The majority of ordinary people truly believe that a gay man is incapable of controlling his lusts or he simply wouldn't be gay. I understand that is nonsense, but sometimes we are called to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and after the clergy abuse scandal, it is going to take some time before people are going to be willing to go there. It isn't fair, but not much in life is. I can't be a priest because I'm female. Many think that is unfair too. My husband tried to become a priest, but because he has schizophrenia, he was turned down. He's completely stable on his medication, and hasn't been to the hospital in 17 years, but they weren't willing to take the chance because the stress of the priesthood might make him unwell again, just as the stress of the priesthood might make it a lot harder for a gay man to maintain his celibacy.

You and I are from very different generations. When I talk about manliness (and after the fight that broke out when I jokingly used the term, "real woman," I'm not about to say "real man"), I am talking about a true sense of being male. Your generation was born to a time when being male, especially a white male, was looked on as something to be ashamed of. There is no way for me to adequately explain to you what it was like when males and females were both allowed to be different sexes. It has nothing to do with throwing a football. My husband has a great sense of his masculinity, but couldn't throw a hand grenade far enough to keep from blowing himself up. I mean that literally. He said it was a good thing they used dummy grenades when he was in Army bootcamp. They thought it best he go into the Artillery where the guns did the throwing of things.

I don't think of all gay men as feminine. Some certainly are by choice, but others, especially the leather guys, are certainly not. Eluding an exterior confidence of manliness has little to do with how their interior self feels. I can't remember a single transgendered male to female person I've met who didn't tell me they spent half their life trying to be as macho as possible. They all served in the military, played sports, drove trucks, that kind of thing, partially to hide who they truly were, and partially to try to change how they felt inside. My husband has never had a power tool in his hand, and I have forbidden him to touch mine for fear of ER visits, but he is still male in a way that I don't see in teenage boys anymore.

It will probably be impossible for me to adequately explain to you how God made male and female separate but equal. Sacraments place upon us indelible marks of grace. I only truly understood the depth of my femininity after entering a sacramental marriage. When men take on the responsibility of families, it changes them in a way I can not put into words. When men become priests, they take on a similar role, but for a much larger family. I also don't see a major difference between an emotionally healthy heterosexual and an emotionally healthy homosexual, both willing to practice celibacy. The problem for many of us, who through age or life experiences have come into contact with many gay men, is that we have met very few healthy homosexuals.

I'm sorry that this has made you so bitter. I sit in class with seminarians who will graduate with the same degree that I will, but yet they will be ordained, and I won't. I could make myself miserable with that. I choose not to. I can't say what God has planned for you. You are still young, your brain is still developing. Give yourself time to know what life is all about before you make your entire person about what you can't be, or what isn't fair. You don't have to be in a relationship in order to take in disadvantaged kids. I raised two foster kids, one who was fetal alcohol and one who was a chemical exposure baby, long before I was married. When I was your age, I had a completely different view of what my life was going to be like. My dad told me that life is what happens to you while you are making other plans. He was right. You are on step 4, and you are worrying about step 3005. Relax.

[CatherineM]

By the way, the 1984 movie "Mass Appeal" with Jack Lemmon dealt with this exact topic.

[Aloysius]

if a man with homosexual inclinations has been truly chaste for at least 3 years, a vocation to the priesthood may be able to be considered, according to that document.

but the point of the priesthood is to give up something which is good for something which is better, not to give up something which is bad for something which is good. one cannot understand sacred celibacy as one sacrificing the possibility of having a homosexual relationship, one must understand sacred celibacy as sacrificing the possibility of having a heterosexual relationship. now, the former may be PART of the celibacy, but the latter must be the true wellspring of the sacrifice. in a similar way, a priest cannot have as the source and summit of the human sacrifice of celibacy he is offering the idea that he has given up having a different girl every weekend... celibacy must include a contemplation on sacrificing something which is good--a wife and a family--for something which is better, the service of the Kingdom of God.

it's like in Lent, there's two types of things people tend to give up. sometimes people give up things like meat or chocolate, things that aren't bad in themselves. sometimes people give up sins. the sacrifice of celibacy can only truly be a divine vocation if the mindset of it is the mindset of giving up meat or chocolate, and not a mindset of giving up some sin or another. that makes celibacy a pure sacrifice.

if one has had at least three years of self-mastery, he can be considered in vocational discernment... but he should be probed into what exactly will be the sacrifice he contemplates because the good and pure sacrifices of something which is morally good are the ones which can sustain the grace of celibacy, but the mindset of sacrifice when applied to moral evils and sins is wrong... one must have a mindset which precludes the doing of those things anyway.

can one give up what one's body is not directed towards anyway? possibly, if one's mind has been directed towards it. could one not be sexually attracted towards females but still contemplate their celibacy as a sacrifice of having a wife and children? it's possible. but such a person, in giving over to celibacy, has not solved the problem of chastity posed by the homosexual condition... such a one must continue the same type of chastity against homosexuality... their chastity against homosexuality is not manifested by their celibacy, their celibacy is an entirely different thing (though obviously breaking chastity against homosexuality would be a breaking of celibacy), celibacy is the sacrifice of something which is good for you, like offering the best of the best lambs for the passover sacrifice. giving up homosexuality is like giving up the diseased lamb that will kill you if you eat it anyway.

it's all about coming to a greater understanding of the truly sacred character of the sacrifice of celibacy

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1859603' date='May 6 2009, 01:53 PM']but the point of the priesthood is to give up something which is good for something which is better, not to give up something which is bad for something which is good. one cannot understand sacred celibacy as one sacrificing the possibility of having a homosexual relationship, one must understand sacred celibacy as sacrificing the possibility of having a heterosexual relationship.[/quote]

The language of "good" and "better" needs to be handled carefully. For most men, marriage is truely the best vocation because that's the direction in which God is calling them. Priesthood perhaps involves a greater sacrifice, and in that sense it is "better," but what we really need to focus on is following Christ because there are so many possible vocations and it's not like God is keeping a tally on how high up the order we were able to make it.

Great example is St. Francis of Assisi... one of the greatest saints in Church history... loved the Church, loved the Eucharist, loved lepers, joyfully obedient to the pope... absolutely refused to be ordained a priest.

Edited May 6, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Aloysius]

I speak of the celibate vocation as a higher calling in a sense because of 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35. This is not to say that the married vocation is not good, it is the perfect fulfillment of human nature as it was made, in the body. But when one sacrifices the perfect fulfillment of their own body's nature, one does so for a higher purpose. St. Francis did this, I'm talking about the sacrifice of celibacy as the higher vocation, not priesthood as the higher vocation. those who, as Our Lord said, have voluntarily become like eunuchs (but not literally eunuchs, of course, that's mutilation) for the Kingdom of God.

The natural vocation of every human being is to marry a member of the opposite sex. It's what your body is designed for. That's biology 101, despite whatever your mind leads you to want to do with your sexual organs, they're clearly designed to create reproductive cells and join them with another reproductive cell in the act of heterosexual sex. Yes, when marriage is done, it should be sanctified and lifted above nature by the infusion of grace; but it is pure nature, pure good nature. Celibacy, by contrast, is above nature, super-nature, a supernatural vocation for a human being. just like heaven itself is a super-natural end for a human being; celibacy is a foretaste of that, it is doing something above human nature.

[AdAltareDei]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1859452' date='May 6 2009, 07:52 AM']That question is for God, not "the hierarchy" [/quote]

Yes, and everytime I think I've discerned His will for me I get a big "NO" from the Vatican.
Because marrying a man that I love would be an abomination and ordination to the priesthood is prohibited.

[Aloysius]

no, it's not. it's prohibited if you decide right here and now to set your future in stone and refuse to be open to the possibilities of the future. but the Vatican document said that those who have been chaste for at least 3 years before entering a seminary can be considered... and then other than that I'd advise what I said on [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=93694&view=findpost&p=1859603"]Post #40[/url] as a means of approaching any possible vocation to the priesthood... seeking out a proper understanding of what exactly the sacrifice of celibacy would be for you and just how the same type of chastity that is required of you as a single man with homosexual attraction is the same chastity while you're celibate, celibacy doesn't give you an escape from that; moreover, celibacy is something additional to that that you have to contemplate.

I once felt boxed out to the point where I thought I had to spend my life in the single vocation. Don't feel you need to harden yourself into any one future, let things work out and trust in God.

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1859423' date='May 6 2009, 02:41 AM']I think barring gay men from the priesthood is in reaction to the perception that they had become too ingrained in the priesthood, especially in seminaries. When dealing with something as large as the clergy abuse scandal is, and it is far from over legally, there is often the reaction to amputate. Even though many of the pedophile priests weren't homosexual, it was felt that the atmosphere that allowed homosexuals to hide in the priesthood also allowed pedophiles to hide. . .[/quote]
You're wrong on a number of counts here.

First, the ban on homosexuals in the priesthood is nothing new. The 2005 document merely reiterated that which was stated in a 1961 document on seminaries, which said among other things that those with "deeply-seated homosexual tendencies" may not enter seminaries.
This was long before the recent sex-abuse scandals.

Secondly, in the vast majority of the sex abuse cases the problem was not true pedophilia, but homosexual pederasty. According to the 2005 John Jay report on priestly abuse, over 80% of the abuse cases involved boys, and the vast majority of these were adolescents past puberty. This is a form of homosexuality, rather than pedophilia, which involves pre-pubescent children (most commonly little girls).
While it is true not all homosexuals abuse underage teenage boys, such abuse is indeed homosexual in nature, and I think only a fool (or one blinded by political correctness) would deny that the homosexual problem in many seminaries did not at least contribute to this problem.

The Church is indeed right in barring those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies (in other words, "gays") from the seminary, and this rule is one which needs to be more seriously enforced.
Seminaries and the priesthood becoming refuges for the sexually disordered is a disgrace and creates a serious scandal to the Church at large (see some of the threads in the Debate Table).

[Guest]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1860224' date='May 6 2009, 10:54 PM']You're wrong on a number of counts here.

First, the ban on homosexuals in the priesthood is nothing new. The 2005 document merely reiterated that which was stated in a 1961 document on seminaries, which said among other things that those with "deeply-seated homosexual tendencies" may not enter seminaries.
This was long before the recent sex-abuse scandals.

Secondly, in the vast majority of the sex abuse cases the problem was not true pedophilia, but homosexual pederasty. According to the 2005 John Jay report on priestly abuse, over 80% of the abuse cases involved boys, and the vast majority of these were adolescents past puberty. This is a form of homosexuality, rather than pedophilia, which involves pre-pubescent children (most commonly little girls).
While it is true not all homosexuals abuse underage teenage boys, such abuse is indeed homosexual in nature, and I think only a fool (or one blinded by political correctness) would deny that the homosexual problem in many seminaries did not at least contribute to this problem.

The Church is indeed right in barring those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies (in other words, "gays") from the seminary, and this rule is one which needs to be more seriously enforced.
Seminaries and the priesthood becoming refuges for the sexually disordered is a disgrace and creates a serious scandal to the Church at large (see some of the threads in the Debate Table).[/quote]

That's why the roman catholic church should allow married priest. There are alot of good men who could serve the church even though they have a wife and children.