Admitting gay seminarians to a school full of men?

[Thorolfr]

There is already a prohibition against deep-seated homosexuals entering seminary. It was instituted after the John Jay report came out.

Why do gay people get their own special terms? I’ve seen references to “deep-seated homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “deep-seated heterosexuals”. And then there are “active homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “active heterosexuals”. Even when someone is unmarried and is supposed to remain chaste according to Catholic teaching but isn’t remaining chaste, no one ever refers to such a person as an “active heterosexual.” And finally, I’ve read about someone being an “avowed homosexual” but never an “avowed heterosexual”.

 

[johnjacob2004]

Bishop Robert Barron

Friends, many of you have asked for my thoughts on the McCarrick abuse crisis, the Pennsylvania grand jury report, and the recent report from Archbishop Viganò. We're all devastated by the horrific...

www.facebook.com

Bishop Barron points to a few factors in the sexual abuse scandals. Clericalism being one and homosexuality being another big factor…

 

[Chris-Wa1]

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Pope Benedict or Pope Francis?

 

[Thorolfr]

artimes121:

I’ve seen some people mention the John Jay report from 2004 but little to no mention to the 2011 John Jay Report which states that homosexulity wasn’t the biggest factor in the crisis.
“There has been widespread speculation that homosexual
identity is linked to the sexual abuse of minors by
priests, largely because of the high number of male victims
identified in the Nature and Scope study. However,
the clinical data do not support this finding.”

Yes you are correct. This is where the report went wrong. The numbers told the story, but political correctness prevented them from concluding what is plain as day. So sad when it was right in front of their face but they didn’t have the courage to say it. Many others have. If 81% of the abuse cases were abuses against males, that’s pretty overwhelming evidence of the problem.

I think that most experts outside the Catholic Church would still think that the report was right. According to a story first reported in the Washington Post:

In an interview published Monday by the conservative Italian newspaper La Verità, Burke said that “homosexual culture” had found “roots inside the church and can be connected to the drama of abuses perpetrated on adolescents and young adults.”

That view has little hold in the mainstream and has been roundly dismissed by researchers and other outsiders, who say that sexual abuse results from a complicated combination of factors including church secrecy, the training and sexual development of young priests, and the profound power gap between clergy and young parishioners. Those who want to see dramatic change in the church sometimes criticize the requirement for celibacy. Scores of girls have also been victimized, though less frequently than boys.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-pope-catholic-church-divisions-20180827-story.html

 

[Larryk113]

Could someone put a link to this that’s not Facebook. They want me to join Facebook to see it. Any help would be grateful. I just choose not to be apart of Facebook.

 

[goout]

I think it’s important to keep in mind that a culture is more like a stew than a steak. You can’t look at one element in isolation.

In the case of these abuses, we have several factors in the stew, and all of them combine to create a rotten culture.

1 All male. not bad per se
2 Celibate. not bad per se
3 Hierarchical power. not bad per se
4 Secrecy related to power. debatable
5 Money related to power. not bad per se
6 Homosexuality. the person attracted is not bad, but the attraction is disorded, and all the above factors make this an attractive place for a gay person with the will to abuse power for his own pleasure.
7 Infidelity to the Church’s clear moral teaching. bad

All these factors make up the culture that predominates in some higher circles of the Church, including seminaries.
You could probably root this out by changing any one of those factors. But I don 't think it’s realistic to believe you will eliminate homosexuality.

So you must look to one of the other factors.
A option for a married priesthood is a good option to look at.
Complete openness financially and pastorally at the diocesan level.
An increased presence of women in positions of formation and power (not as priests obviously).

These all present serious challenges, but if you want to change a rotten culture, then you have to change it. And we must admit in this age of sound bites and quick fixes, change is going to be really hard. Let me note the elephant in the room again:
change is going to be really hard.

There are too many simplistic half measures being proposed. You can’t simply “make sure a man isn’t gay before he enters the seminary”. A “gay test” won’t work. These changes are every bit as hard as the conversion we are all called to.

“If your eye offend thee, pluck it out”. I think that’s what Christ might say to us.

 

[mVitus]

Do you have any links to back that up?

The New York Times article @therese1998 provided gives some info. There was a statistic I read a while back. I can’t find it at the moment.

I owe you a huge apology. I had read your answer to be that Denominations with married clergy DO have lower rates of sex abuse. Please, forgive my skipping the key word.

No problemo.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Of course they would–the so called “experts” do not see homosexual sex as sinful or wrong in any way. They reject the teachings of the Church on this matter, and would love to see the Church capitulate to secular society on this issue and many others like ordaining women, a married priesthood, etc. I don’t give them much credence.

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course they would–the so called “experts” do not see homosexual sex as sinful or wrong in any way. They reject the teachings of the Church on this matter, and would love to see the Church capitulate to secular society on this issue and many others like ordaining women, a married priesthood, etc. I don’t give them much credence.

You’re confusing the issue of whether homosexuality is sinful with whether it contributes to the sexual abuse of children or the sexual harassment of adults. These experts might not see gay sex as wrong but they definitely do see sexual abuse of minors and sexual harassment of adults as wrong and in their opinion, homosexuality is not the root cause of that abuse and that harassment. Researchers and psychologists are not in the business of making pronouncements about whether something is “sinful” or not.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

There is already a prohibition against deep-seated homosexuals entering seminary. It was instituted after the John Jay report came out.

Why do gay people get their own special terms? I’ve seen references to “deep-seated homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “deep-seated heterosexuals”. And then there are “active homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “active heterosexuals”. Even when someone is unmarried and is supposed to remain chaste according to Catholic teaching but isn’t remaining chaste, no one ever refers to such a person as an “active heterosexual.” And finally, I’ve read about someone being an “avowed homosexual” but never an “avowed heterosexual”.

They are just using the terms used by psychologists and other researchers who developed reports such as the John Jay report. Clearly, the researchers see value in making these distinctions.

 

[OraLabora]

Could someone put a link to this that’s not Facebook. They want me to join Facebook to see it. Any help would be grateful. I just choose not to be apart of Facebook.

I second this motion. I too have ejected facebook from my life.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Why do gay people get their own special terms? I’ve seen references to “deep-seated homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “deep-seated heterosexuals”. And then there are “active homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “active heterosexuals”. Even when someone is unmarried and is supposed to remain chaste according to Catholic teaching but isn’t remaining chaste, no one ever refers to such a person as an “active heterosexual.” And finally, I’ve read about someone being an “avowed homosexual” but never an “avowed heterosexual”.

They are just using the terms used by psychologists and other researchers who developed reports such as the John Jay report. Clearly, the researchers see value in making these distinctions.

I just looked and the term “deep-seated” does not appear anywhere in the John Jay Report to describe homosexuals and I’ve never seen than term in anything done by psychologists, either. It seems to be a term used only in Catholic documents. And I’ve never seen the phrase “active homosexual” in anything done by professional psychologist either, but I see it used here in CAF.

 

[Thorolfr]

Here’s something from the New York Times:

Archbishop Viganò and his allies have argued that the pope and his supporters are too accepting of gays in the church and that they willfully ignore that the vast majority of victims of sexual abuse by priests are male.

Most experts reject the conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia as a dangerous route to bigotry against gays. Outside the church, the belief has been widely discredited as retrograde.

 

[bullish1]

You realize most sexual assault is straight guys right? Even in the priesthood.

No, didn’t realize that. Don’t believe that. This is a false statement that is contrary to all the evidence.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

That article is all talk and keeps calling people homophobic in order to discredit them. Some off hand remark about some so-called experts is hardly credible.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

That’s not really proof either.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

Thorolfr:

Why do gay people get their own special terms? I’ve seen references to “deep-seated homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “deep-seated heterosexuals”. And then there are “active homosexuals” but I’ve never seen people referred to as “active heterosexuals”. Even when someone is unmarried and is supposed to remain chaste according to Catholic teaching but isn’t remaining chaste, no one ever refers to such a person as an “active heterosexual.” And finally, I’ve read about someone being an “avowed homosexual” but never an “avowed heterosexual”.

They are just using the terms used by psychologists and other researchers who developed reports such as the John Jay report. Clearly, the researchers see value in making these distinctions.

I just looked and the term “deep-seated” does not appear anywhere in the John Jay Report to describe homosexuals and I’ve never seen than term in anything done by psychologists, either. It seems to be a term used only in Catholic documents. And I’ve never seen the phrase “active homosexual” in anything done by professional psychologist either, but I see it used here in CAF.

As I said, the term comes from psychologists. Here is an explanation. This is a published article.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/002436311803888302

 

[Thorolfr]

That’s not really proof either.

I don’t think that there is any way to prove anything about this issue. But I do think that most professional psychologists would not consider homosexuals more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children or sexually harass adults. And I do believe that making the argument that homosexuality is the root cause of the sexual abuse crisis is going to increase hostility towards gay people in general in some segments of society.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

But I do think that most professional psychologists would not consider homosexuals more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children or sexually harass adults.

Except for a few extremists, I don’t think that was the point of what most people are trying to say.

 

[Thorolfr]

As I said, the term comes from psychologists. Here is an explanation. This is a published article.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/002436311803888302

The article you posted, “The Distinction between Deep-Seated Homosexual Tendencies and Transitory Same-Sex Attractions in Candidates for Seminary and Religious Life,” is by two Catholic therapists, Peter Kleponis and Richard P. Fitzgibbons, and it’s published in Linacre Quarterly, which Wikipedia describes as, “the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association and primarily focuses on the relationship between medicine and spirituality.”

There’s nothing wrong with any of this, but the term “deep-seated” is obviously one that is derived from Church documents, not from psychology.