Homosexuality In The Priesthood.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Winchester' date='29 August 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1251569757' post='1957934']
Everything is geared toward not dealing with the problem.
[/quote]
Yes, the Jaycee Lee Dugard affair is a case in point.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics' date='29 December 1975']
Individuals should be endowed with this virtue according to their state in life: for some it will mean virginity or celibacy consecrated to God, which is an eminent way of giving oneself more easily to God alone with an undivided heart.[27] For others it will take the form determined by the moral law, according to whether they are married or single. But whatever the state of life, chastity is not simply an external state; it must make a person's heart pure in accordance with Christ's words: "You have learned how it was said: You must not commit adultery. But I say this to you: if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart."[28]
[/quote]

I don't know if this is helpful to the conversation, but this got my attention.

I guess my question is, what defines homosexuality? If it is the act, than a celibate technically cannot be a homosexual. If it is the desire, then I would have to say that homosexual priests would definitely have a harder time living Christ's call. So would Heterosexuals, for that matter.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Gregorius' date='29 August 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1251595415' post='1958105']
I don't know if this is helpful to the conversation, but this got my attention.

I guess my question is, what defines homosexuality? If it is the act, than a celibate technically cannot be a homosexual. If it is the desire, then I would have to say that homosexual priests would definitely have a harder time living Christ's call. So would Heterosexuals, for that matter.
[/quote]

Pope Benedict is still a heterosexual (I assume so) even though he doesn't sleep with women. I don't see why it would be any different with the term homosexual.

Edited August 30, 2009 by OraProMe

[Apotheoun]

I do not buy into the modern politically correct attempt to label men (and women) according to sexual desires (e.g., heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, et al.).

Now with that out of the way, as a Catholic I believe, in accordance with scripture and the tradition of the Church, that God made mankind - male and female - and that the complimentary nature of sexuality finds its fulfillment only in the natural desire of a man to become one with a woman, and of a woman to become one with a man, through the marital covenant, which images the love that Christ has for His mystical Body, the Church.

That said, I refuse to equate the natural sexual desires which draw a man to a woman and a woman to a man with the unnatural sexual desires of those afflicted with SSA.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Apotheoun

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1251601338' post='1958157']
I do not buy into the modern politically correct attempt to label men (and women) according to sexual desires (e.g., heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, et al.).
[/quote]

But the Church uses these terms in her official documents, including the Catechism. Has the Vatican then bought "into the modern politcally correct attempt to label men (and women) according to sexual desires"?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='29 August 2009 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1251603845' post='1958169']
But the Church uses these terms in her official documents, including the Catechism. Has the Vatican then bought "into the modern politcally correct attempt to label men (and women) according to sexual desires"?
[/quote]
Yes, many English translation do uses politically correct terminology, which reveals the intrusion of non-Catholic ideas into the Church, but there is nothing new about that. Moreover, can the Vatican, and the USCCB, and other Catholic institutions be influenced by political correctness? Yes, of course they can.

I will not reduce a man (or a woman) to the desires (sexual or otherwise) that ebb and flow throughout life.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='29 August 2009 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1251603845' post='1958169']
But the Church uses these terms in her official documents, including the Catechism. Has the Vatican then bought "into the modern politcally correct attempt to label men (and women) according to sexual desires"?
[/quote]
No man can be reduced to his sexual desires, natural or unnatural, any more than he can be reduced to his desires for specific types of food, or other things for that matter.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Apotheoun has a good point. What about, for instance, if a woman goes through menopause (or a man through andropause) and completely loses a sex drive? Does that mean that they used to be heterosexual, but now they're just asexual? There's more to it, for sure.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 August 2009 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1251604334' post='1958173']
No man can be reduced to his sexual desires, natural or unnatural, any more than he can be reduced to his desires for specific types of food, or other things for that matter.
[/quote]

Pardon the interruption, but I believe his question went unanswered.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='29 August 2009 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1251604708' post='1958175']
Pardon the interruption, but I believe his question went unanswered.
[/quote]
No, I answered it, as I said "The Vatican, and the USCCB, and other Catholic institutions" can be influenced by politically correct terminology, and this is especially true in the English speaking world.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 August 2009 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1251604888' post='1958177']
No, I answered it, as I said "The Vatican, and the USCCB, and other Catholic institutions" can be influenced by politically correct terminology, and this is especially true in the English speaking world.
[/quote]

OH, pardon me, I didn't see the first reply.

[iheartjp2]

Since the former debate has been dissolved into a debate over terminology, I'd like to point out that holding to specific definitions of words that can mean different things in different discussions is its own form of "political correctness". It's just gone to an opposite extreme. Anti-political correctness is of the idea that we should be able to use words carefully but not meticulously, that we shouldn't be so rigid in our word-use that we get bent out of shape when we hear something we don't particularly like (that's not meant to be offensive).

[OraProMe]

It'd be great to get back on topic as to why or why not homosexuals should be ordained. It's interesting that the poll has ten each way and three in the middle.

Edited August 30, 2009 by OraProMe

[Apotheoun]

I am for keeping the traditional terminology of the Church, which has limited itself to calling a person a "homosexual" only if he (or she) has committed homosexual acts. The modern language of "sexual orientation" is based on a non-Catholic ideological perspective, which reduces man to his passions, and I see no reason why a Catholic should accept that type of terminology, and in fact I see many reasons for its firm rejection.

As the Holy Fathers taught, the passions ebb and flow throughout life, and they can be properly ordered or disordered, but because they are ephemeral it follows that they cannot be a defining characteristic of a human being.

[OraProMe]

I'd say I agree with that. If I could edit the poll I'd change it to something else. But you all know what I mean...