Homosexuality In The Priesthood.

[mommas_boy]

What we need to remember is that the Priesthood is indeed a Marriage, where the priest stands [i]in persona Christi Capitus[/i] (in the person of Christ, the Head), as the bridegroom of the Church, who is the [b]Bride[/b] of Christ. This is why women cannot be priests; this is why priests ought not be married; and this is why it is most fitting that the priest be of heterosexual orientation.

Though, I do wonder whether stable SSA men would do well as brothers, since they are called to chastity.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='31 August 2009 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1251736376' post='1958839']
Though, I do wonder whether stable SSA men would do well as brothers, since they are called to chastity.
[/quote]

I made that suggestion to a friend of my husband's who was in major seminary when he became ill with schizophrenia. He wouldn't even consider it. He actually tells people that our archbishop can't be in communion with the Pope since he won't let him return to the seminary. That's the paranoia part of the illness speaking. He really hasn't accepted his illness, and says that he only takes his medicine as a form of personal penance. It's the same as women who want to be ordained think just being a nun is beneath them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' date='31 August 2009 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1251736298' post='1958838']
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. [/quote]
That is not at all what the Church is doing; instead, she is simply saying that someone who suffers from a psychical disorder that involves a "more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil" will not be allowed to be ordained.

A man is free to disagree with the Church, but his rejection of the Church's position has no bearing on the Church's power to restrict ordination to men not afflicted with a particular psychical disorder (e.g., SSA).

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='31 August 2009 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1251739208' post='1958859']
That is not at all what the Church is doing; instead, she is simply saying that someone who suffers from a psychical disorder that involves a "more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil" will not be allowed to be ordained.[/quote]
Do gluttony, drunkenness, greed, lust, etc., not involve "more or less strong tendenc[ies] toward ... intrinsic moral evil[s]" and, if so, why are persons afflicted with those disorders not automatically disqualified from being able to be considered for the priesthood?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' date='31 August 2009 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1251739570' post='1958865']
Do gluttony, drunkenness, greed, lust, etc., not involve "more or less strong tendenc[ies] toward ... intrinsic moral evil[s]" and, if so, why are persons afflicted with those disorders not automatically disqualified from being able to be considered for the priesthood?
[/quote]
Are they sins? Yes. Has the Church described the tendency to act out on any of those particular things as "a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil"? No, she has not.

P.S. - I do believe that if the Church knows that a man is habitually acting in the manner you have indicated (i.e., he is an alcoholic, or greedy, or filled with lust, etc.) he would not be ordained, because his moral character (at least in relation to some of your examples) would be in question.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' date='31 August 2009 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1251739570' post='1958865']
Do gluttony, drunkenness, greed, lust, etc., not involve "more or less strong tendenc[ies] toward ... intrinsic moral evil[s]" and, if so, why are persons afflicted with those disorders not automatically disqualified from being able to be considered for the priesthood?
[/quote]
You have free will, and so you can choose to disagree with the Church on this issue, but your rejection of the Church's stated position has no impact on what the Church has decided to do in connection with this particular issue.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='31 August 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1251739950' post='1958867']
You have free will, and so you can choose to disagree with the Church on this issue, but your rejection of the Church's stated position has no impact on what the Church has decided to do in connection with this particular issue.
[/quote]
I'm not "rejecting" anything, I'm simply asking a question. Please don't brand me a heretic. I want to know why a homosexual [i]tendency[/i] is worse than a tendency toward gluttony, drunkenness, greed, lust or [fill in the blank], and why it should disqualify someone from the priesthood while other "potentialities" do not.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' date='31 August 2009 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1251740236' post='1958871']
I'm not "rejecting" anything, I'm simply asking a question. Please don't brand me a heretic. I want to know why a homosexual [i]tendency[/i] is worse than a tendency toward gluttony, drunkenness, greed, lust or [fill in the blank], and why it should disqualify someone from the priesthood while other "potentialities" do not.
[/quote]
The homosexual inclination -- at least according to Catholic tradition -- has been seen as [i]contra naturam[/i], meaning that it is not disordered merely as a matter of degree (.e.g, as gluttony is), but is by its very nature objectively disordered, i.e., disordered [i]per se[/i]. In other words, there is no case in which homosexual sexual desires (as a passion) are or can be good, because such desires if acted upon -- according to their end (telos) -- are always gravely immoral (i.e., according to their activity).

Edited August 31, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Winchester]

Everyone is called to chastity.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='31 August 2009 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1251740831' post='1958880']The homosexual inclination -- at least according to Catholic tradition -- has been seen as [i]contra naturam[/i], meaning that it is not disordered merely as a matter of degree (.e.g, as gluttony is), but is by its very nature objectively disordered, i.e., disordered [i]per se[/i]. In other words, there is no case in which homosexual sexual desires (as a passion) are or can be good, because such desires if acted upon -- according to their end (telos) -- are always gravely immoral (i.e., according to their activity).[/quote]
So what you are saying is that gluttony is simply a distortion of a natural desire, while homosexuality as a desire is entirely unnatural, i.e. there are no circumstances under which it could ever be exercised naturally? What about smoking? There is no circumstance under which smoking could be exercised naturally, i.e. in a way that wasn't harmful. Does that mean that smokers or someone with a desire to smoke should be disqualified for consideration for the priesthood?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' date='31 August 2009 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1251748205' post='1958955']
So what you are saying is that gluttony is simply a distortion of a natural desire, while homosexuality as a desire is entirely unnatural, i.e. there are no circumstances under which it could ever be exercised naturally? What about smoking? There is no circumstance under which smoking could be exercised naturally, i.e. in a way that wasn't harmful. Does that mean that smokers or someone with a desire to smoke should be disqualified for consideration for the priesthood?
[/quote]
What about smoking? In itself smoking is not evil, although it can have a deleterious impact upon a man's health.

But back to one of your original (and better) examples:

Eating is a natural desire, and as a natural desire it involves the good of preserving life, although it can be abused. While the same cannot be said about the desire of a man to have sex with another man, which involves an unnatural attraction that if acted upon is always gravely immoral, and that is why the Magisterium has said that the desire itself cannot be seen as "benign" [CDF Instruction [i]Homosexualitatis Problema[/i], no. 3].

Edited August 31, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Hassan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='31 August 2009 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1251748667' post='1958959']
What about smoking? In itself smoking is not evil, although it can have a deleterious impact upon a man's health.

But back to one of your original (and better) examples:

Eating is a natural desire, and as a natural desire it involves the good of preserving life, although it can be abused. While the same cannot be said about the desire of a man to have sex with another man, which involves an unnatural attraction that if acted upon is always gravely immoral, and that is why the Magisterium has said that the desire itself cannot be seen as "benign" [CDF Instruction [i]Homosexualitatis Problema[/i], no. 3].
[/quote]

One might think that if a desire or impulse is found in nature then it is by definition natural.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 August 2009 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1251754340' post='1959006']
One might think that if a desire or impulse is found in nature then it is by definition natural.
[/quote]

Do you really want to walk down the hallway, and pass all the doors that opens up?

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 August 2009 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1251755389' post='1959015']
Do you really want to walk down the hallway, and pass all the doors that opens up?
[/quote]

Sure, what have you got?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hassan' date='31 August 2009 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1251754340' post='1959006']
One might think that if a desire or impulse is found in nature then it is by definition natural.
[/quote]
Perhaps from a non-Christian perspective, but Christians hold that the ancestral sin has caused disorders in the human psyche, both in the sense that brings about a distortion of natural desires and a misuse of natural things, and in the sense of experiencing unnatural desires and the performance of unnatural acts.