1985 Vatican memo ruled out "latent" homosexuals

[Confiteor]

Further evidence dating back to the now resurfaced 1985 memo that the Vatican does not want nonpracticing homosexuals to enter seminaries to become priests. Apparently, not all bishops “got the memo” (literally as well as figuratively).

“latent or repressed homosexuality is also a counterindication requiring that the candidate not be accepted.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506805.htm

 

[m134e5]

This could rule out A LOT of men. Most men have been curious about other guys while growing up- some have been confused about their sexuality because hormones can make you think crazy things when you’re that age. If they had no personal convictions against homosexuality (maybe they weren’t raised in any religion or something) and they were bold enough, if they had the opportunity to experiment with other guys, they probably took it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m curious to know what is the objective, absolute measure of a “non-practicing” homosexual.

What are they going to do, parade men and women in front of them and measure whether their pupils dilate?

I never thought I’d be defending homosexual men, but I think Christ dies for them too. The only reason we don’t want our priests to have a certain sin – or would rather them have one that’s out there in the open then one that is hidden – is that we think we can measure by spiritual roles.

How do we know a homosexual man might not preach a sermon that would bring a person long at turmoil to peace? If we look at job performance and want a person to do the work, then what we don’t know doesn’t hurt us.

Good grief! All of a sudden I feel like I’m defending Bill Clinton. Well you know what? This is one conservative Republican who is willing to defend him, but never pull the trigger for him or – heaven forbid – his wife. What the world needs now is not more Hillary. (I wonder if she’s gay? )

Alan

 

[Ahimsa]

AlanFromWichita:

What the world needs now is not more Hillary.

Well, there was a Pope Hilarius or two, so you never know.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ahimsa:

Well, there was a Pope Hilarius or two, so you never know.

Oh, I’m such a visual person… if my kids were awake, I’d be tempted to ask them to fix me up a photo of the holy father with her face substituted. Probably just as well they are asleep.

Alan

 

[Guar_Fan]

My understanding of “latent or repressed homosexuality” is that the person does not have sexual maturity. Instead of confronting and resolving his sexuality, he has stuffed his emotions and denied his feelings. I think there are very good reasons not to ordained priests with repressed sexuality, gay or straight.

To live a chaste life requires sexual maturity. It requires that the priest has confronted and addressed his sexual impulses, so that they don’t blindside him later. I don’t have any studies to back me up, but I wonder if repressed homosexuality (not homosexuality per se) contributed to the sex abuse crisis that the Church has faced.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think if you really get to the root of it, original sin constitutes latent .

Frankly, none of us deserve to become priests.

Alan

PS I think I finally figured out why homosexuality, and not anger, are considered sins worthy of excluding from priesthood. It’s because, as my SD once explained about the six components of a whole person (physical, mental, sexual, social, spiritual, emotional) that our sexual component is most closely linked to identity. In effect, then, we’ve embraced the cry of the gay rights movement that it isn’t about “what they do” but “who they are” so it really isn’t about whether they sin or perform on the job, but as fundamental as the restriction against women. It isn’t all about being of manly nature (as judged I suppose by certain measures) just in the physical realm, but in the emotional as well.

That said, about 20 years ago I took the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) which is a highly respected tool for psychology. On the male/female scale, I scored on the female side and the doctor wrote in his report that considering my education and fine arts background that would cause such an indication. (Basically the test is based on stereotypes in effect when the test was written, because psychoanalysis is based on statistics and finding the right label to put on their box.) Given other factors, he was not concerned about my having any difficulty in this area.

It’s just as well I got married and had six children, as I suppose I might not have passed the test for celibacy.

Now I’m thinking to myself, “gosh Alan, can’t you remain serious for even one post?” To which I answer myself, “I used to go around acting serious, but people crucified me for it because they didn’t want to hear my truth. Playing the fool seems to work better, and this way if they hate what I say they’ll just think I’m kidding them again.”

Next step, does Alan have enough faith to learn how to get to the point without a page of diatribe? Only time will tell…

All about me. Gosh I’m a wreck. I have too much fun here. I need to get off this forum and back to filling our insurance paperwork that will, like, put groceries on the table.

Alan