Homosexuality & The Priesthood

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860226' date='May 6 2009, 10:56 PM']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.[/quote]

I'm not following your logic. What does banning men with deep seated same sex attraction have to do with allowing priests to marry?

[Guest]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1860233' date='May 6 2009, 10:01 PM']I'm not following your logic. What does banning men with deep seated same sex attraction have to do with allowing priests to marry?[/quote]

because there is such a lack of priest and the celibacy evidently attracted alota gay perverted men. if married priest were allowed there would be so many more priest and we wouldnt have to take whoever. it's sick what these priest have done.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Guest

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1859451' date='May 6 2009, 08:50 AM']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.[/quote]
Wrong.

Men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" may not enter seminaries. That means people we would consider "gay." (Note this is listed i[i]n addition to[/i] those who are actually practicing homosexuals.)

[quote]In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question,' cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called"gay culture".10
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correcdy to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.[/quote]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/instruction.pdf"]http://www.usccb.org/instruction.pdf[/url]

[url="http://www.zenit.org/article-14748?l=english"]Here's a good article/interview clarifying this[/url].

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies represent an objective disorder (as clearly taught by the Church), and thus, unless completely overcome, present an obstacle to the priesthood.
The problem is the tendencies themselves, not just those who are unable to practice sexual continence (which would obviously be a problem for any in the priesthood, homosexual or otherwise, but that's a different issue).

The Church has no equivalent standards barring those with "deep-seated heterosexual tendencies."

Once again, the truth is not politically-correct.

[AdAltareDei]

[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.[/quote]
What's deeply seated homosexual tendencies?
Are they harder to combat than sins which may arise from "deeply-seated" heterosexual "tendencies?" And do these deeply rooted tendencies detract from someones ability to be a good priest?

[quote]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,[/quote]
I'm homosexual, I'm not attracted to young boys at all. Not to mention pedophiles are known to abuse both boys and girls. Are they just bisexual pedophiles?

[quote]and the vast majority of these were adolescents past puberty.[/quote]
Most teenage boys I know are capable of giving consent to sex.

[quote]This is a form of homosexuality, rather than pedophilia, which involves pre-pubescent children (most commonly little girls).[/quote]
I love how you make it sound like sex between two mature men (even if one is a priest) is more reprehensible than a man raping a little girl.

[quote]While it is true not all homosexuals abuse underage teenage boys,[/quote]
Not all?
How about the vast majority of homosexuals don't abuse underage teenage boys?

[quote]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.[/quote]
Yeah possibly. I'd say that bishops moving offenders from parish to parish and failing to hand on reports to the police contributed to the problem a hell of a lot more though, wouldn't you say?

[quote]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.[/quote]
A gay mans sexuality is no more deep rooted than a straight mans sexuality. Aslong as they both embrace chastity theres no reason both can't be good priests.

[quote]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]
If I was looking for somewhere to find refuge it wouldn't be in a job that would require me to believe my sexuality to be against the natural order. I think it's more a matter of following Gods will than finding a place of refuge.

[AdAltareDei]

Socrates,
I just read the interview with Zenit you posted.
Thanks for the LOLfest.


I love that a straight man feels he has the competence to speak out on what makes gay people, gay.
[i]Those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies identify themselves as
homosexual persons and are usually unwilling to examine their emotional conflicts that caused this tendency.[/i]
Emotional conflict? I've never had any emotional conflict other than the same teenage angst croutons that everyone goes through.

[i]Strong physical attraction is present to other men's bodies and to the masculinity of others due to profound weakness in male confidence.[/i]
I definitely agree with the first part. But because of a "profound weakness in male confidence?" Nah man, it's just because they're hot.

[i]These individuals in the priesthood have a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual,[/i]
ummm? I'm definitely not like that. And I've never known another homosexual to be angry at or jealous of another man just because they're straight.

[i]insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males[/i]
My two best friends are both straight males.
Good one, doc.

[i]Most of these men had painful adolescent experiences of significant loneliness and sadness, felt insecure in their masculinity, and had a poor body image.[/i]
Nah, I loved my childhood and I'm pretty happy with my body.
I will admit, I do smell of elderberries at football.

[i]Well-designed research studies have demonstrated a much higher prevalence of psychiatric illness in those who identify themselves as homosexual.[/i]
Probably because of [mod]people --IP inappropriate language[/mod]like you rather than because they're attracted to guys.

[i]Under severe stress they may even experience strong physical and sexual attraction to adolescent males, as has occurred in the crisis in the Church.[/i]
As someone with "deeply seated homosexual tendencies" I can say that when I'm stressed I usually have cigarette and put some music on. Never once have I thought "why don't I [mod]have sex with a minor[/mod]?"

[i]They can benefit from therapy to extinguish effeminate mannerisms and to strengthen their appreciation of their God-given masculinity so that they may become true spiritual fathers.[/i]
Effeminate mannerisms? I'm a guy. Most people can't tell I'm gay when they meet me. One of my ex-boyfriends was a skater, another was heavily involved in sport.
Contrast this to my heterosexual cousin who likes Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls.[b] Now THATS disordered.[/b]

[i]Frequently, they may have difficulty working in a collegial and comfortable way with heterosexual males.[/i]
Nope

[i]Unresolved paternal anger is regularly misdirected as rebellion against the magisterium and the Church's teaching on sexual morality.[/i]
Nope. I don't understand the Church's teachingon the issue, but I accept it and I am trying to lead a chaste life. Besides, I doubt anyone who is angry at the magisterium would want to become a priest.

I could have tried to be a bit more serious in my response, but given what I had to work with...

Edited May 11, 2009 by IcePrincessKRS

[AdAltareDei]

.....the censorship system on this website is so lame, albeit hilarious

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1860251' date='May 7 2009, 12:14 AM']Men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" may not enter seminaries. That means people we would consider "gay." (Note this is listed i[i]n addition to[/i] those who are actually practicing homosexuals.)[/quote]

If they document is referring to all gay men, then it should say so. But since the wording of the document is more nuanced, the issue is apparently more nuanced than simply banning all gay men from the seminary.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1860175' date='May 6 2009, 11:24 PM']Even traditional minded men have to be able to shepherd flocks in a charitable manner. The gentleman I was referring to believed that women who had abortions should never be allowed back in the church, no matter how sorry for their sins they were. He didn't believe that reconciliation should be open to them. He said he would never give absolution to someone who committed adultery or even to teenage boys who had masturbated. I don't think even the FSSP would agree with that theology.[/quote]
Well, that's Jansenism... the reason your friend can't enter seminary isn't because he's not nice enough, it's because he's a Jansenist heretic. there might be some Jansenist tendencies among many traditionalists, but such hard-core Jansenism is very very rare in traditionalism.

now, lighter types of Jansenist trends exist among the thought processes of many traditionalists, but that usually just arises out of a bit of scrupulosity applied to a larger paradigm, since the scrupulous are often attracted to the traditional movement. but those Jansenist trends tend to give way to an acknowledgment that truly repentant attitudes are always to be received by the Church with mercy and forgiveness.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1860251' date='May 7 2009, 12:14 AM']Deep-seated homosexual tendencies represent an objective disorder (as clearly taught by the Church), and thus, unless [b]completely[/b] overcome, present an obstacle to the priesthood.
The problem is the tendencies themselves, not just those who are unable to practice sexual continence (which would obviously be a problem for any in the priesthood, homosexual or otherwise, but that's a different issue).[/quote]

I hate to be a bother, but it seems to me that "deep seated" homosexual tendencies which were partially overcome or mostly overcome would, then, become no longer "deep seated"...but perhaps "shallowly seated"... meaning it's not that they have to become completely overcome, it's that they have to be overcome in some significant way in one's spiritual journey. Which is why I stand by my advice earlier, which suggests that the document's 3 year period from the last homosexual experience is the first stepping stone after which one seeks the guidance of the vocations director to discover if there is a possibility of proceeding forward to see if a proper understanding of celibacy can be attained.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1860039' date='May 6 2009, 08:35 PM']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.[/quote]

There are many more options in life besides marriage and priesthood. I'm 28 years old and have never been married or ordained, but I've ministed in other ways as a layperson. A good number of great blesseds and saints were laypeople, third order, brothers and sisters (one of my favorites is Blessed Frassati, who apparently longed to be married judging by some of his quotes about love). Single people can live very fulfillng and meaningful lives by offering our singleness to God.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1860039' date='May 6 2009, 08:35 PM']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.[/quote]

There are many more options in life besides marriage and priesthood. I'm 28 years old and have never been married or ordained, but I've ministed in other ways as a layperson. A good number of great blesseds and saints were laypeople, third order, brothers and sisters (one of my favorites is Blessed Frassati, who apparently longed to be married judging by some of his quotes about love). Single people can live very fulfillng and meaningful lives by offering our singleness to God. Marriage and ordination require a great deal of mature discernment... a lot of men aren't ready until their mid-20s (in which case, they would be doing better than me...)

Edited May 7, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Socrates]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1860603' date='May 7 2009, 08:16 AM']What's deeply seated homosexual tendencies?
Are they harder to combat than sins which may arise from "deeply-seated" heterosexual "tendencies?" And do these deeply rooted tendencies detract from someones ability to be a good priest?[/quote]
Deeply seated homosexual tendencies are tendencies toward homosexuality which are serious and persistent, as opposed to transitory or fleeting.

The issue is more than just combating sins, but the fact that homosexual tendencies are themselves objectively disordered, and show a lack of proper sexual development.

As for how this relates to ability to be a priest:
[quote]The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him.[/quote]
Homosexuals do not have the affective maturity to be spiritual [b]fathers[/b], which is part of the job of a priest.


[quote]The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate's personality and [b]to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, as well as his confessor, have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.[/b][/quote][url="http://www.usccb.org/instruction.pdf"]http://www.usccb.org/instruction.pdf[/url]

[quote]I'm homosexual, I'm not attracted to young boys at all. Not to mention pedophiles are known to abuse both boys and girls. Are they just bisexual pedophiles?[/quote]
Good for you. Not sure what it has to do with anything though. Pedophilia is another disorder.

[quote]I love how you make it sound like sex between two mature men (even if one is a priest) is more reprehensible than a man raping a little girl.[/quote]
I said nor implied nothing of the sort. Try actually reading my posts before spitting out such outrageous claims about what I wrote.

Pedophilia is most certainly a reprehensible crime, and I never said anything to imply that it was somehow more acceptable than homosexuality.
And certainly pedophiles have no place in the priesthood. That should go without saying.

My point was that most of the priestly abuse cases, according to the [url="http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/"]John Jay study[/url], did not actually involve pedophilia, but homosexual pederasty with adolescent boys.


[quote]Not all?
How about the vast majority of homosexuals don't abuse underage teenage boys?[/quote]
However, over 80% of the priestly abuse involved boys rather than girls.
Not an insignificant figure, especially considering that nowhere near 80% of the male population is homosexual.

[quote]Yeah possibly. I'd say that bishops moving offenders from parish to parish and failing to hand on reports to the police contributed to the problem a hell of a lot more though, wouldn't you say?[/quote]
Yes, though most of the bishops involved with moving offenders were involved with homosexual cliques in the clergy. And one evil does not justify another.

[quote]A gay mans sexuality is no more deep rooted than a straight mans sexuality. Aslong as they both embrace chastity theres no reason both can't be good priests.[/quote]
Read the [url="http://www.usccb.org/instruction.pdf"]whole document[/url].
The problem is that homosexuality is in itself objectively disordered, while "straight" sexuality is not.

Heterosexuality = objectively rightly ordered
Homosexuality = objectively disordered

As the document explains, spiritual fatherhood is not for those with sexual disorders of any kind.

From the CDF document[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"] On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[/url]:
[quote]In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.[b] Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.[/b]

[b]Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.[/b][/quote](I'd strongly recommend you read t[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"]he entire document[/url].)

[quote]If I was looking for somewhere to find refuge it wouldn't be in a job that would require me to believe my sexuality to be against the natural order. I think it's more a matter of following Gods will than finding a place of refuge.[/quote]
If you're interested in following God's will, you will humbly obey the commands of His Church, rather than bitching about them constantly.

Remember, "Not my will, but thine be done."

The priesthood is a special divine privilege and calling for which not everyone is fit, not a "right" owed to whomever wants it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1860611' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']Socrates,
I just read the interview with Zenit you posted.
Thanks for the LOLfest.[/quote]
Glad you were entertained.
Your posts are a real hoot too.

[quote]Probably because of dickheads like you rather than because they're attracted to guys.[/quote]
Yes, your maturity and lack of anger issues is evident here.

Studies have repeatedly shown that the rate of psychiatric problems among homosexuals are just as high, or worse, in places known to be "gay-friendly" and tolerant of homosexuality.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=91589&hl=\San%20Francisco\&st=0"]Thread on the topic here, with links.[/url]

These problems can't all be just blamed on outside "homophobia."

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1860639' date='May 7 2009, 10:14 AM']If they document is referring to all gay men, then it should say so. But since the wording of the document is more nuanced, the issue is apparently more nuanced than simply banning all gay men from the seminary.[/quote]
I think the document is quite clear, if you read the whole thing.

"Gay" itself is not a clearly-defined scientific word, but a slang term which has been adopted by the homosexual movement, and saying "all gay men" would not clarify anything. (People have argued on here, for instance, whether "gay" refers to those actively living the "gay lifestyle" or anybody with SSA).

[quote]In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question,' [b]cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."[/b][/quote]

The report distinguishes those with deep-seated tendencies from practicing homosexuals, but neither are to be ordained as priests.
"Deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are distinguished from those that are transitory and in the past:[quote]Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem — for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.[/quote]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1860642' date='May 7 2009, 10:21 AM']I hate to be a bother, but it seems to me that "deep seated" homosexual tendencies which were partially overcome or mostly overcome would, then, become no longer "deep seated"...but perhaps "shallowly seated"... meaning it's not that they have to become completely overcome, it's that they have to be overcome in some significant way in one's spiritual journey. Which is why I stand by my advice earlier, which suggests that the document's 3 year period from the last homosexual experience is the first stepping stone after which one seeks the guidance of the vocations director to discover if there is a possibility of proceeding forward to see if a proper understanding of celibacy can be attained.[/quote]
Note that the document says the homosexual [b]tendencies[/b] must be overcome for at least three years, not just that it be three years since committing a homosexual act.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Socrates

[AdAltareDei]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1861248' date='May 7 2009, 08:23 PM']Deeply seated homosexual tendencies are tendencies toward homosexuality which are serious and persistent, as opposed to transitory or fleeting.[/quote]
It was rhetorical. Intended to convey how stupid the terminology is.
[i]
The issue is more than just combating sins, but the fact that homosexual tendencies are themselves objectively disordered, and show a lack of proper sexual development. [/i]
I don't think they show a lack of proper sexual development. If you look at it from an Darwinian point of view it's part of diversity of species.


[i]Homosexuals do not have the affective maturity to be spiritual [b]fathers[/b], which is part of the job of a priest.[/i]
Whats involved in being a spiritual father? When you've told me this, tell me why a mans sexual orientation impacts on his ability to care for his flock. I'd like solid examples, not just loopholes avoiding the question.

The same reasons that Doctor provides in the interview you posted to back up your position? I've already addressed that and you chose to ignore all my responses other then one for using the word "dickhead".

Nice work, if you can't answer then say so don't try and avoid the topic.
[quote]Good for you. Not sure what it has to do with anything though. Pedophilia is another disorder.[/quote]
You are arguing there's a corelation between homosexuality and pedophilia before. You are right, pedophilia is another disorder, so it makes no sense to blame homosexuals for the clergy abuse crisis.

[quote]My point was that most of the priestly abuse cases, according to the [url="http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/"]John Jay study[/url], did not actually involve pedophilia, but homosexual pederasty with adolescent boys.[/quote]
The majority of teenage boys are both physically and emotionally able to resist the advances of a priest. So once again, homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, because pedophilia is not consentual, by definition.

[quote]However, over 80% of the priestly abuse involved boys rather than girls.
Not an insignificant figure, especially considering that nowhere near 80% of the male population is homosexual.[/quote]
I can't verify if this is correct or not. Assuming it is I would say that there's a vast difference between 80% of pedophiles having homosexual tendencies and 80% of homosexuals having pedophilic tendencies. It's like a black man saying "alright, 100% of KKK members are white so I'm not going to trust any white male I see, even thought only .0005% of white men are members of the KKK"

[quote]Yes, though most of the bishops involved with moving offenders were involved with homosexual cliques in the clergy. And one evil does not justify another.[/quote]
Protecting criminals and rapists is an evil.
Ordaining a celibate gay man to the priesthood so he can serve the Church is not.
You can't even compare the two by saying "one evil does not justify another".

[quote]Read the [url="http://www.usccb.org/instruction.pdf"]whole document[/url].
The problem is that homosexuality is in itself objectively disordered, while "straight" sexuality is not.[/quote]
Sure, but does this disorder impact on the mans ability to teach and sanctify his flock?

[quote]As the document explains, spiritual fatherhood is not for those with sexual disorders of any kind.

From the CDF document[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"] On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[/url]:
(I'd strongly recommend you read t[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"]he entire document[/url].)[/quote]
I have, I still don't see (and you still haven't explained) why a man is incapable of being paternal just because he's gay.

[quote]If you're interested in following God's will, you will humbly obey the commands of His Church, rather than bitching about them constantly.[/quote]
The prohibition of homosexuals is a disciplinary law of the Church, not a doctrine. It does not demand internal assent as is open to debate. It's in the same category as priestly celibacy.

[quote]Remember, "Not my will, but thine be done."[/quote]
Hence why I've embraced chastity. Because thats based on Catholic DOCTRINE through which we know Gods infallible truth. Curial documents and laws such as the one in question aren't inspired by the Holy Spirit and are more a matter of internal politics and structure rather than His will.

[quote]The priesthood is a special divine privilege and calling for which not everyone is fit, not a "right" owed to whomever wants it.[/quote]
Yeah I know. I'm not arguing it's a right. I'm arguing that having homosexual tendencies doesn't make one unfit for the job.

[b]You claim that homosexuals cannot be spiritual fathers. I'd like to know what is involved in being a spiritual father? And then why a homosexual can't fulfil these duties just because of his sexuality.[/b]

Also, thanks for selecting one line from my reply to that ridiculous interview you posted. If you don't have answers for my other objections then either say so or don't try and throw such misinformed garbage around in the first place.

Edited May 8, 2009 by AdAltareDei

[Nihil Obstat]

Ad, everyone's got the right to disagree, but we also try to do so respectfully. Just some friendly advice.