10 good reasons to admit to seminary a candidate with SSA--Can you make the case?

  • Thread starter Thread starter felra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

felra

Guest
This thread is in deference to those folks who believe that a candidate for seminary formation who having admitted/identified as possessing SSA should be admitted. Instead of the usual arguments as to “why not?”, I throw down the gauntlet and ask you to cite 10 reasons “why” this is advisable and in the best interest of the Church. Being a fair minded individual, I also invite those opposed to admittance to offer their list of 10 reasons “why” heterosexual oriented men are the only fit candidates for seminary formation.

Note: Entries of less than 10 reasons will be accepted either side. I offer this thread in view of *“**The bishop overseeing a Vatican-ordered inspection of U.S. seminaries said there is no room there for men with strong homosexual inclinations.” *http://www.ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=NTU-
 
I thought it depended more on the Call of God to the priesthood. Whether they have strong tendencies or not they are called to chastity. However, if they are entering because of their tendencies then they are doing themselves and the Church a disservice
 
Any man who can go longer than a decade in our sexually inundated culture obviously has a real possibility of doing so because of a strength of character and/or love of God. While not a blanket statement, the Bishops’ was. This should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, just like every other priest.

The process of discernment is not an easy one. Apparently most drop out. A homosexual priest will go through the same.

Pedophilia, ephebophilia, and homosexuality are three different things. Being a homosexual does not mean attraction to children or teens. As a matter of fact, it excludes it.

Homosexual tendencies is not a sin. All priests have weaknesses. Some to lies. Some to theft. Some to drinking. Some to women. All are equally detrimental to their walk in Christ. Homosexuals are no different in this regard. The sin is in acting on it, not in having the thought.

Priests in the Latin Rite do not have sex. Homosexuality is a moot point.

I know there are priests who size up the women and think terrible thoughts about them. The possibility of a homosexual doing same with a male subject is an equal sin, not a worse one. People on either side who struggle with sexual issues should be carefully screened [out].

Having same sex tendencies does not mean the person struggles with same. He might have come to accept it with the grace of God. It isn’t going to go away, but he can be responsible about it. (Just the same as heterosexual priests remain heterosexual and do not all of a sudden become asexual, but they can properly handle themselves.)

Having a supportive community who understands a person’s weaknesses but still accepts the person, and can properly praise or rebuke a person, is much more likely to cause a person to act in a Godly way then if the person’s struggles remain hidden. By refusing priests who have SSA, they will still enter but keep that part of themselves hidden. By accepting them, they will have community support and will not struggle with this nearly as much.

No one is arguing that those who have issues and are actively called to ACT on SSA should be allowed in the priesthood. Much the same as a heterosexual would be counseled that if he felt like pursuing a woman, he shouldn’t be there, as it is a sign that he is not yet ready to accept a marriage to the church, and no sex. The end result would be different for someone with SSA, as you wouldn’t then counsel him to go after the guy, but the same logic is applied. If he isn’t ready to commit himself to the church, he isn’t ready. This is just the same for those with SSA.

If a man feels a distinct call to the priesthood, fully understands the commitment he is making, desires to make said commitment to the church, and makes it through the lengthy discernment period, why would we then turn him away because he could have chosen a different path?

Priests who have grappled with and come to peace about their sexuality are wonderful leaders for those who find themselves facing similar struggles.
 
I believe some of the biggest difficulties that have plagued SSA priests to date are:

Some were encouraged and admitted as a “prescription” to their being gay. You struggle with it? Well, then be a priest! It was like their SSA would magically disappear even though they were struggling so much with it. The answer is that the priesthood isn’t a prescription. If they are struggling so much with a tendency to sin, they should not make it through the discernment process, and definitely should not have this struggle overlooked.

Many feel once they get into the priesthood, they cannot acknowledge (even to their closest brothers) what they struggle with. They fear they will be equated with pedophiles or be kicked out of a profession they are honestly called to. Because of this, they do not have a support network and must deal with this on their own. They should not be immediately turned into outcasts just because they have a mental weakness. They need acknowledgment and support. Then they most likely will not ever ACT on it.

We need to understand the difference between sexual attractions. There are Pedophiles. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are sub-categorizedd into those who are attracted to children of their same sex or the opposite sex. Then there are Ephebophiles. They are attracted to teens (specifically post-pubescent and under the legal age). These too are sub-categorized. Then there are homosexuals. They are attracted to the same sex. Not to children!

For some reason, we as a society tend to think of homosexuals as terribly perverted and cannot see them simply as people. They want to love. Get married. Raise a family. The same noble things as the rest of society. But their brains only allow them to feel this attraction to people of the same sex. If you were repulsed by those of the opposite sex, but wanted love and marriage, what is the alternative? They have a terrible cross to bear. Because of society’s unwillingness to understand, they tend to seperate themselves from society and support each other. Then you get places like San Fransisco, where they decide to openly rebel. Those media images are not the norm of SSA; they are the equivalent of Mardi Gras and Girls Gone Wild to heterosexuality. We need to offer them support within society and within the church so they do not feel like they must live outside of it. (ETA: This is not an argument for admitting SSA priests, but for making a climate where those with SSA feel they are welcome in the church community. As above, my argument remains that any one struggling so mightly with a tendency to sin should not make it through the discernment and seminary periods.)

All SSA have been grouped together. Either we should let them in or we shouldn’t. We need to look at each individual person and what place they are in their spiritual and physical life, and not make sweeping judgments about all people, either good or bad.

(Sorry about the rainbow, for some reason using the bullets or numbers makes it stall and not post. I dunno…)
 
I believe the message is loud and clear. Homosexual men need to find a new place to lurk if lurking is all they want to do. Main entry Lurk: 1 a : to lie in wait in a place of concealment especially for an evil purpose
 
40.png
contemplative:
I believe the message is loud and clear. Homosexual men need to find a new place to lurk if lurking is all they want to do. Main entry Lurk: 1 a : to lie in wait in a place of concealment especially for an evil purpose
It appears the Episcopalian church is more than happy to swell its ranks with homosexual males.
 
40.png
contemplative:
I believe the message is loud and clear. Homosexual men need to find a new place to lurk if lurking is all they want to do. Main entry Lurk: 1 a : to lie in wait in a place of concealment especially for an evil purpose
40.png
swampfox:
It appears the Episcopalian church is more than happy to swell its ranks with homosexual males.
I don’t believe either of those answer the original topic. If you have some logical reason that people with SSA should not be admitted to seminaries, please present it. Otherwise, I believe the other thread that Felra linked to would be a better outlet for your opinion.

(And Contemplative, I am not sure what you are talking about, but if you are referring to pedophilia, I encourage you to read my above posts in which I discuss the distinct difference between pedophiles and homosexuals, as you seem to have them confused. This is a thread about the latter.)

40.png
felra:
This thread is in deference to those folks who believe that a candidate for seminary formation who having admitted/identified as possessing SSA should be admitted. Instead of the usual arguments as to “why not?”, I throw down the gauntlet and ask you to cite 10 reasons “why” this is advisable and in the best interest of the Church. Being a fair minded individual, I also invite those opposed to admittance to offer their list of 10 reasons “why” heterosexual oriented men are the only fit candidates for seminary formation.
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
(And Contemplative, I am not sure what you are talking about, but if you are referring to pedophilia, I encourage you to read my above posts in which I discuss the distinct difference between pedophiles and homosexuals, as you seem to have them confused. This is a thread about the latter.)
I am hard pressed to make a distinction between pedophile and homosexual when I read stories like this.

Good Grief It happened again in the Diocese of Rochester, NY

And what exactly is the cut-off age for some men who prefer males? It all seems very gray sometimes…very disturbing and alarming to say the least. No… I am not confused. There is a population of homosexual/pedophiles males who swing toward younger men …younger men who might be under age 16 or not.
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
Pedophilia, ephebophilia, and homosexuality are three different things. Being a homosexual does not mean attraction to children or teens. As a matter of fact, it excludes it.
So a 25 year old female who is attracted to a nineteen year old male is not heterosexual, she is a ephebophilia? :rolleyes:

Also, the criteria for non-admission would not be SSA, but “anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations”.
 
40.png
Hildebrand:
So a 25 year old female who is attracted to a nineteen year old male is not heterosexual, she is a ephebophilia? :rolleyes:
Ephebophilia (in Greek ‘ephebos’ έφηβος = teenager and ‘philia’ φιλία = friendship), also known as hebephilia, is the condition in which an adult is dependent on sexual attraction to adolescents. It is a chronophilia, i.e. belongs to a group of paraphilias of the stigmatic or eligibilic type in which the paraphile’s sexuoerotic age is discordant with his or her actual chronological age and is concordant with the age of the partner.

No, I specified post-pubescent and under legal age. It is classified as discordant with the person’s age. An 18 year old attracted to a 17 year old would not be an ephebophile. Nor would a 25 year old with a 19 year old. A 25 year old who was attracted to 16 year olds would classify, but probably still pass the OK threshold in society. When that same 25 year old became 30 and still only was interested in 16 year olds, it would be clear that his sexuoerotic age had not progressed with his chronological age. This amount of grey area in the 20s (when most people are actively dating) is the precise reason you don’t hear much about ephebophilia. Pedophiles (pre-pubescent children) are much easier to delieniate as always wrong. Again, ephebophiles are adults who are consistently attracted to post-pubescent minors. Most are also attracted to the opposite sex. (They have a “school girl” complex, you could say.)

I have no idea what a 25 year old woman’s attractions have to do with admitting SSA men to the seminary, though.
40.png
Hildebrand:
Also, the criteria for non-admission would not be SSA, but “anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations”.
That is NOT what the OT was. The OT was SSA. If you then want to say you support SSA priests but not those with strong inclinations to act on it, I’d be more than happy to agree with you!
40.png
Felra:
This thread is in deference to those folks who believe that a candidate for seminary formation who having admitted/identified as possessing SSA should be admitted.
 
In my judgment, therefore, the bishops of the United States ought to recognize and state publicly that a large and important part of the clerical sexual offenses to be dealt with are seductions by homosexual clerics of adolescent boys and young men.

Being candid about this matter promises three benefits. First, facing this and other relevant facts will help bishops deliberate soundly about how to deal with clerical sexual offenses. Second, specifically condemning criminal homosexual seduction of adolescents and young men would be an appropriate first step for dealing with the homosexual subculture in the Catholic Church in the United States. Third, since most of the secular media of communication are sympathetic to so-called gays and reluctant to publicize criminal homosexual activity, speaking clearly about criminal homosexual seduction will dampen the media’s enthusiasm for the story of “child sex abuse by Catholic priests.”…
Can men with a homosexual orientation become good candidates for ordination? There are reasons to doubt it. Sexuality profoundly shapes the lives of human persons, and a homosexual orientation, albeit less bizarre than the commonly recognized paraphilias, is a grave disorder. Homosexual men no doubt can be perfectly continent, but the charism of celibacy involves more: peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy into priestly service for the kingdom’s sake.

Therefore, if a man with a homosexual orientation can become a good candidate, he will not only be perfectly continent but peacefully chaste rather than aflame with passion—that is, he will deal fairly easily with sexual temptations and will seldom be seriously anxious about them or distracted by them. He will not be effeminate and will have the masculine psychology and the virtues of a good father. Understanding and accepting the truth taught by the Church, he will know not only that all homosexual activity is gravely wrong but that the orientation itself is a disorder. He will feel neither proud nor ashamed of his affliction. He will not suppose that his sexual orientation is an asset for priestly ministry and will realize that it would be a serious liability if it became known to people entrusted to his pastoral care; many of them, and not least the parents of boys, would not easily trust or comfortably relate to a priest whom they knew to be homosexual. So, to avoid impeding people’s access to Jesus through his ministry, such a candidate will not make a point of his homosexuality, any more than a candidate with some other problem that many people find distasteful would do. As a result, most people will never learn about his affliction. The few who do will have been told in strict confidence for some good reason…
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=20750
Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
 
40.png
contemplative:
I am hard pressed to make a distinction between pedophile and homosexual when I read stories like this.

Well, medical doctors have no problem doing so. They also have much more extensive literature to base their opinions on.

And what exactly is the cut-off age for some men who prefer males? It all seems very gray sometimes…very disturbing and alarming to say the least. No… I am not confused. There is a population of homosexual/pedophiles males who swing toward younger men …younger men who might be under age 16 or not.
These are not homosexuals or pedophiles. Men consistently attracted to 16 year old boys are ephebophiles. Their main attraction is to the age, the secondary attraction is to the sex. Homosexual men have a sexuoerotic age that is comparable to their chronological age. That means that if they so choose they can be adults about it and put sex in its proper context, and therefore come to accept and move beyond their issues with sexuality. Society is currently making this a difficult task. Why should we add to this?!

The man in this position now cannot be with women, cannot be with men, and has a genuine desire to be of use. Because he could have chosen to take off for San Fransisco and wear a skimpy spandex suit, but instead came to a prayerful and well-thought-out desire to join the priesthood (and made it through the years of seminary), this man should be punished? How is that different from a guy who could have chosen to take off for Vegas and gamble his life away, but ten years later hasn’t gambled and has no desire to, and desires to serve the Lord?

By telling them that the entire group of them doesn’t ever have a chance of being up to par, we send a clear message that we see them as sub-par and that the entire group of them is eternally incapable of becoming holy. There are plenty who shouldn’t make it, just like there are plenty of heterosexuals who shouldn’t. Knowing Godly men who have taken a different path than San Fran and found support and a holy life is a definite testament to the homosexual community. There is a place for them if they make the right decisions. There is another way. We tell them this, but then tell them they can’t do it here. How hypocritical!
 
I think this needs to be said, and I’ll say it again. Homosexuals should not be ordained priests. Check this article out on lifesite.net
link

here’s one from 1961 in whicht the Vatican prohibits homosexuals in the priesthood.

link

The real answer is the one for which there was no doubt before pro-gay propaganda made it politically incorrect to say: homosexuality is caused by one’s environment - that is, some of the millions of experiences that influence a growing child before the age of seven.

I think that one of the biggest lies of homosexual activists is that they will say “I was born that way.” As far I’m concerned there is no scientific proof. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality testifies to this.

link
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
These are not homosexuals or pedophiles. Men consistently attracted to 16 year old boys are ephebophiles. Their main attraction is to the age, the secondary attraction is to the sex. Homosexual men have a sexuoerotic age that is comparable to their chronological age. That means that if they so choose they can be adults about it and put sex in its proper context, and therefore come to accept and move beyond their issues with sexuality. Society is currently making this a difficult task. Why should we add to this?!
The majority of perpetrators are involved with postpubescent children. All things being equal, they are more amenable to treatment. One of their goals is to develop satisfying relationships with age-appropriate peers.

Thus, in contrast with pedophiles, Rossetti describes ephebophiles: “There are others who are ephebophiles, i.e., sexually attracted to postpubescent children” (67).

Melvin C. Blanchette, S.S.S., and Gerard D. Coleman, S.S.S., “Priest Pedophiles,” America, 25 April 2002, claim that ephebophilia is one of “five basic sexual orientations.” They define it as follows:

A fixated ephebophile possesses a primary sexual desire toward children between 14 and 17, with the adolescent victim being at least five years younger than the perpetrator. This category becomes especially complicated when the victim is a 14- to 17-year-old boy, and the adult male’s attraction might be one of homosexuality rather than ephebophilia.

In fact, there are two reasons to doubt whether an adult male’s sexual interest in adolescent boys or young men often, if ever, manifests a basic sexual orientation distinct from homosexuality. First, if one looks for “ephebophilia” in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, one does not find it. Second, as Rossetti says (88), pedophiles are not amenable to treatment because “psychotherapy usually cannot change one’s sexual orientation.” But, Rossetti also points out (68): “Many times adults who are sexually aroused by minors may also be aroused by adults as well.” Other things being equal, Rossetti says (88), ephebophiles are “more amenable to treatment,” for they can learn to “develop satisfying relationships with age-appropriate peers.”

In other words, men who have engaged in criminal sexual behavior with adolescent boys and young men can be treated effectively, because no change in sexual orientation is necessary. Such men generally, and perhaps always, simply are homosexuals who have found underage partners attractive and conveniently available, and have been willing to commit crimes. With treatment, they can stop committing crimes and enjoy “satisfying relationships with age-appropriate peers.” “Age-appropriate” is a telling expression. Priests should and usually do enjoy satisfying *nonsexual *relationships with many of their spiritual children, from the cradle to the grave. Only unchaste relationships must be limited to age-appropriate peers—to consenting adults. Rossetti apparently considers that limitation a successful treatment outcome.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=20750
Now, I do not agree with all of Rosetti’s conclusions, but it is logical to conclude that men who are attracted to post pubsecent males are homosexual.
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
Ephebophilia… is the condition in which an adult is dependent
on sexual attraction to adolescents.

Meaning the person is only attracted to adolescents. That is a major disorder.

Finding young adults and adults attractive is not a disorder or else most Jews throughout time would be considered disordered, including possibly St. Joseph. BTW, I am not talking about lust, I am talking about attraction. Attraction that might lead to marriage and a long marriage. (Ephebophiles would want a short marriage with divorce so they can marry another young adult and once he/she is too old, they move onto another young adult.)

Ignore this and you get the media response of these priests were not homosexuals, they were pedophiles or some other “iles”.
 
40.png
Hildebrand:
Meaning the person is only attracted to adolescents. That is a major disorder.

Finding young adults and adults attractive is not a disorder or else most Jews throughout time would be considered disordered, including possibly St. Joseph. BTW, I am not talking about lust, I am talking about attraction. Attraction that might lead to marriage and a long marriage. (Ephebophiles would want a short marriage with divorce so they can marry another young adult and once he/she is too old, they move onto another young adult.)

Ignore this and you get the media response of these priests were not homosexuals, they were pedophiles or some other “iles”.
I would agree. The attraction, to the opposite sex, post pubescent 15 or 70, is not pathologic or morally disordered. I am not saying it is licit to act on every attraction, but it is natural.

The attraction to the same sex, post pubescent, 15 or 70 is pathologic and morally disordered and should never be acted on.
 
40.png
fix:
The attraction, to the opposite sex, post pubescent 15 or 70, is not pathologic or morally disordered. I am not saying it is licit to act on every attraction, but it is natural.
I would agree with that. Recently in the past in many American cultures, men (18-“20 something”) would “court” women that are 15/16/17/18 years old. The courtship would last several years with adult supervision of the woman’s family on every date. By the time of marriage, the woman was around age 18-19, give or take a year. If the man says, “well she looks too old now and I want to court someone younger”, the man has a major disorder. If he is still in love with her at age 18, age 25, age 35, etc the man does not have a disorder.
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
That is NOT what the OT was. The OT was SSA. If you then want to say you support SSA priests but not those with strong inclinations to act on it, I’d be more than happy to agree with you!
From the original link:
“I think anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary,” Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, who’s coordinating the visits of more than 220 seminaries and houses of formation, told the Register.
ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=NTU-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top