Homosexuality In The Priesthood.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='cappie' date='30 August 2009 - 03:51 AM' timestamp='1251618681' post='1958233']
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, from the Congregation for Catholic Education issuing the document said:

One lingering doubt about the homosexuality document was whether a homosexually oriented man who was nevertheless committed to celibacy could be ordained a priest. At Thursday’s press conference, Cardinal Grocholewski gave a rather forceful “no,” and here are the essential parts of his answer:

“The candidate does not necessarily have to practice homosexuality (to be excluded.) He can even be without sin. But if he has this deeply seated tendency, he cannot be admitted to priestly ministry precisely because of the nature of the priesthood, in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. Here we are not talking about whether he commits sins, but whether this deeply rooted tendency remains.”

Cardinal Grocholewski was then asked why, if a man with strong heterosexual tendencies but who is celibate can be ordained, the same could not be true of a man with homosexual tendencies? His answer:

“Because it’s not simply a question of observing celibacy as such. In this case, it would be a heterosexual tendency, a normal tendency. In a certain sense, when we ask why Christ reserved the priesthood to men, we speak of this spiritual paternity, and maintain that homosexuality is a type of deviation, a type of irregularity, as explained in two documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[b] Therefore it is a type of wound in the exercise of the priesthood, in forming relations with others. [/b]And precisely for this reason we say that something isn’t right in the psyche of such a man. We don’t simply talk about the ability to abstain from these kinds of relations.”

Commenting on the 2005 document’s distinction between “deep-seated” and “fleeting” tendencies to homosexuality, the cardinal said fleeting tendencies could be overcome. He said there were two schools of thought on this, however:

“Today, some people say homosexuality is so `structured’ that it cannot be cured. On the other hand, many others say today that homosexuality can be cured, and we even have examples of this that have been presented. So we don’t exclude the possibility of a certain cure, but there is also needed a degree of certainty that someone’s psyche has been put right, because very often this homosexual tendency, as we know, begins to emerge later.”

Filed under: CNS, Vatican
[/quote]

I'd like to ask the Cardinal what exactly is "spiritual paternity" and why someone with SSA doesn't have it.

The not forming relationship thing I already commented on:

[i]I'd also be interested in knowing how SSA "gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women." It's an interesting statement and the document doesn't seem to provide any rationale for such a broad generalization. [/i]

There seem to be a lot of claims with no explanation in all this.

Edited August 30, 2009 by OraProMe

[cappie]

[i]"There seem to be a lot of claims with no explanation in all this."
[/i]
Many things can be said about the Vatican's Instruction on gay candidates for the priesthood. Here I want to argue that it is a failure against hope. It indulges, at least materially, in one of the two cardinal sins against hope, presumption. Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, wrote of this sin that "one thinks one has ... greater knowledge ... than one has." In at least two places, the Instruction engages in presumption. However that is my opinion and does not change the teaching but makes it all the more challenging

[OraProMe]

Thanks Father. Your posts here have been really helpful. It's just it's very hard reading all the presumptions that affect so many people (those aspiring to the priesthood, those currently in the seminary and SSA priests already ordained) and for me, and I'm sure a lot of other SSA Catholics, the presumptions definitely don't fit my (perhaps our) experiences. I can't help laugh when I read some of the interviews that try to explain things like homosexuals not being able to relate to male parishioners because it's just so off base and uses sweeping generalizations.

"Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone"....and all that stuff.

[VeniteAdoremus]

Wow, a lot happened in this thread!

I've wondered for ages whether the English language had the words "heterophile" and "homophile" (two words we have in Dutch referring to non-practising heterosexuals and homosexuals). Apparently, it doesn't.

Why (I think) Apotheoun was (I think) rightly making a point about this, is because [i]a priest is more than his ministry.[/i] Priesthood is in the first place a sacrament. Think of Carthusians. Because of their extremely strict enclosure, they will not instruct the faithful, supply the sacraments (except Mass, very rarely Anointing of the Sick, and some of them Confession). You could rightly say that their lifestyle impediments them from exercising the greater part of their priestly ministries. Yet no-one would even think they're not proper priests (except those people who have trouble understanding what contemplative life is about in the first place).

So, like zunshynn said, there are other things that are important, but that's where my thoughts end. I wouldn't know what "makes" a priest (I'm not one). I think it should be a case-by-case basis, though.

[CatherineM]

Ora-One of the things you might not be looking at is the immense demands ordination places on someone. That was the primary reason the archbishop gave for not allowing my husband to enter the Deaconate eventhough he has been stable on his meds for over 15 years. The work that priests and deacons do is so emotionally and sometimes physically draining, that any underlying issues can become magnified. If someone has chemical dependence issues, mental illness, or any other type of challenge, such as SSA, the stress of their ministry may make them much more vulnerable to relapse.

[Winchester]

The Church doesn't have to provide rationales for granting Holy Orders. She doesn't have to show how she came to a particular conclusion, nor is the route to a correct conclusion necessarily correct.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' date='30 August 2009 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1251642614' post='1958281']
The Church doesn't have to provide rationales for granting Holy Orders. She doesn't have to show how she came to a particular conclusion, nor is the route to a correct conclusion necessarily correct.
[/quote]

Sure, a good Catholic will assent to the decision of the Church even if they don't understand it. But I wouldn't say the Churches M.O is to demand belief without any explanation or reasoning. That's why we have theologians and the catechism, right?

People with some intelligence usually like to understand [i]why[/i] something is the way it is. Refusing to supply an explanation usually means they don't have one.

Edited August 30, 2009 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='30 August 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1251642318' post='1958280']
Ora-One of the things you might not be looking at is the immense demands ordination places on someone. That was the primary reason the archbishop gave for not allowing my husband to enter the Deaconate eventhough he has been stable on his meds for over 15 years. The work that priests and deacons do is so emotionally and sometimes physically draining, that any underlying issues can become magnified. If someone has chemical dependence issues, mental illness, or any other type of challenge, such as SSA, the stress of their ministry may make them much more vulnerable to relapse.
[/quote]

Oh hey, that's a really good point! I never thought of that. I guess I'd point to the thousands of SSA priests who are currently doing a fine job in their ministry but, like VA mentioned, you'd probably have to look at the whole thing case by case rather than making generalizations one way or the other.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='30 August 2009 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1251648068' post='1958295']
Oh hey, that's a really good point! I never thought of that. I guess I'd point to the thousands of SSA priests who are currently doing a fine job in their ministry but, like VA mentioned, you'd probably have to look at the whole thing case by case rather than making generalizations one way or the other.
[/quote]

and, and don't take this as offensive or anything, but also it might be that there is no medication that one can take to regulate SSA feelings. Meaning, with certain other illness/disabilities oftentimes they can be controlled with medication to a point where the Church may feel comfortable with giving them priestly duties. However, with SSA, no matter how much control a person may seem to have, without a medical way to suppress it, it may be something that they just don't want to take a chance on. I'm not saying necessarily that SSA is a disease, or that it should be controlled by medication (that is a discussion that should be explored elsewhere and one I'm not prepared to take part in.) Just that, since there is no medication/treatment for it (regardless of whether or not there should be), maybe this makes it more difficult to admit to ordination a man with this affliction.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cappie' date='30 August 2009 - 06:19 AM' timestamp='1251634799' post='1958251']
[i]"There seem to be a lot of claims with no explanation in all this."
[/i]
Many things can be said about the Vatican's Instruction on gay candidates for the priesthood. Here I want to argue that it is a failure against hope. It indulges, at least materially, in one of the two cardinal sins against hope, presumption. Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, wrote of this sin that "one thinks one has ... greater knowledge ... than one has." In at least two places, the Instruction engages in presumption. However that is my opinion and does not change the teaching but makes it all the more challenging
[/quote]
After the sexual scandals that have rocked the Church in recent years, which - whether people want to admit it or not - were not primarily cases involving pedophilia but were instead examples of hebephilia, ephebophilia, and homophilia, I think that the reassertion by members of the hierarchy of the Church's traditional stand is the only prudent course of action.

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='30 August 2009 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1251647920' post='1958294']
People with some intelligence usually like to understand [i]why[/i] something is the way it is. Refusing to supply an explanation usually means they don't have one.
[/quote]
However, this is a case of you disliking the explanation.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' date='30 August 2009 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1251651771' post='1958332']
However, this is a case of you disliking the explanation.
[/quote]

You said that the Church doesn't have to provide any explanation for her positions (which is true, but not desirable). There is no explanation provided for me to dislike.

[Winchester]

So how much research did you do on [i]this[/i] subject before you started complaining? Perhaps the Church is being to [i]insular [/i]again? Or totalitarian? Certainly if it were run by adolescents it would be better. Then everyone could say they love Jesus and that would be enough. We could get rid of pesky rules of behavior, except for smiling and telling people Jesus loves them. Why even have rules for Mass? Let's have some talking and just sing some fun songs about Jesus petting bunny rabbits and telling everyone they're good enough.

You know, I wish the Bible said: Kill your enemies. I relate to that. It works. But I know it doesn't say that. I don't criticize it for my shortcomings. I find fault in myself, not in the Church. Perhaps it's because I'm old. I remember when I was a better interpreter of the Bible than the Church. Hopefully, you will last long enough to look back on the time that you knew everything.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Winchester

[kamiller42]

There seems to be a lot of weight put into the "as along as they are celibate" argument. Would you ordain a pedophile and assign him to run a Catholic elementary school if he claimed "I'm celibate"? If there was a moment of hesitation in answering the question, then you know the answer.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 August 2009 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1251608109' post='1958196']
And that is a massive symptom indeed, since it involves an attraction to a behavior that is "an intrinsic moral evil."
[/quote]
That may be true. The bottom line, however, is that we're getting into "only perfect people can be priests" territory, which is of course impossible as well as ultimately self-defeating. Eating disorders and substance abuse involve "massive symptoms," yet we're not talking about disqualifying gluttons or drunkards from the priesthood. Why don't we talk instead about folks who have discerned a call and let the "selection process" work itself out without carte blance disqualifying people who may in fact have been called to bear a particular cross as part of their service to God?