Archbishop O'Brien says gays should be banned from seminaries

[barnestormer]

Archbishop O’Brien says gays should be banned from seminaries
seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002490817&zsection_id=2002107549&slug=seminaries13&date=20050913

By Rachel Zoll
The Associated Press

The American prelate overseeing a sweeping Vatican evaluation of every seminary in the United States said yesterday that most gay candidates for the priesthood struggle to remain celibate and that the church must “stay on the safe side” by restricting their enrollment.

Archbishop Edwin O’Brien made the comments as Roman Catholics await word of an eagerly anticipated Vatican document on whether gays should be barred from the priesthood. O’Brien and several other U.S. bishops have said they expect that document to be released soon.

O’Brien, who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services in Washington, said that “there are some priests … with same-sex attractions and they’ve done very well” remaining celibate.

“But generally speaking, in my experience, the pressures are strong in an all-male atmosphere,” he said. “And if there have been past failings, the church really must stay on the safe side. … The same-sex attractions have gotten us into some legal problems.”

{Moderator’s note: quote too long, edited down. See guidelines for help in posting}

 

[Della]

The bishop is right but for the wrong reasons. Gay sexual relations are intrinsically wrong, therefore the term “celibacy” does not apply to their refraining from having such relations.

One may as well say that an adulterer was remaining celibate from relations with women other than his wife. Both adultery and homosexual sex are sins. One cannot be celibate from committing a sin.

Celibacy is refraining from heterosexual intercourse not from homosexual intercourse, plain and simple.

The priesthood ought to be made up of men who are voluntarily giving up having a wife and children, in other words, who will remain celibate. A homosexual cannot make that commitment since he is not giving up wife and children but only keeping free from sin, something we are all called to do.

The priest represents the father, the husband of the people of God. A homosexual cannot represent that since he would not have been a father or a husband in his life outside the priesthood.

 

[mercygate]

barnestormer:

Debbie Weill, executive director of DignityUSA, which represents gay and lesbian Catholics, accused bishops of “scapegoating” gays to divert attention from the failure of church leaders to protect children.

How’s *that *for a fine piece of reasoning? :whacky:

 

[Orionthehunter]

Della:

The bishop is right but for the wrong reasons. Gay sexual relations are intrinsically wrong, therefore the term “celibacy” does not apply to their refraining from having such relations.

One may as well say that an adulterer was remaining celibate from relations with women other than his wife. Both adultery and homosexual sex are sins. One cannot be celibate from committing a sin.

Celibacy is refraining from heterosexual intercourse not from homosexual intercourse, plain and simple.

The priesthood ought to be made up of men who are voluntarily giving up having a wife and children, in other words, who will remain celibate. A homosexual cannot make that commitment since he is not giving up wife and children but only keeping free from sin, something we are all called to do.

The priest represents the father, the husband of the people of God. A homosexual cannot represent that since he would not have been a father or a husband in his life outside the priesthood.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Sorry but I hit send to early so there was nothing in my previous post.

Words are powerful because words allow us to communicate thoughts, principles, theory, dogma, doctrine, emotions, etc. But words have to mean the same thing to everyone. Celibacy is by definition abstaining from all sexual relations (heterosexual, homosexual, and masturbation).

Gay sexual relations are intrinsically wrong, therefore the term “celibacy” does not apply to their refraining from having such relations.One may as well say that an adulterer was remaining celibate from relations with women other than his wife. Both adultery and homosexual sex are sins. One cannot be celibate from committing a sin.

Not true. As a married man, my wife and I could have a celibate marriage and we would not be celibate from committing a sin. If I were single, I should be celibate from committing a sin. Just as any non-married person, a Priest is required to be celibate or they are committing a sin. The difference is that a Priest takes this vow as a part of his vocation. Celibate singles do not take this vow as they live their single life (until they might choose to get married or enter a religious order).

Celibacy is refraining from heterosexual intercourse not from homosexual intercourse, plain and simple.

Not true. As I said above.

The priesthood ought to be made up of men who are voluntarily giving up having a wife and children, in other words, who will remain celibate.

I couldn’t agree more.

A homosexual cannot make that commitment since he is not giving up wife and children but only keeping free from sin, something we are all called to do. The priest represents the father, the husband of the people of God. A homosexual cannot represent that since he would not have been a father or a husband in his life outside the priesthood.

Huh? Homosexuals have gotten married, had kids, divorced, etc. for all of recorded history.

I know of Priests who entered the seminary relatively later than most and they weren’t virgins prior to entering the Priesthood. They are great priests and remain celibate. But, I’m sure that more than once they have seen a woman they found attractive and had impure thoughts. First, they didn’t act on them. Second, if the thought was suffficiently impure (don’t beat me up on this. I’m just deferring that I’m sure the Priest knows if it was a serious sin and necessary to confess), it was probably a discussion they had w/ their spiritual director.

Personally, I believe that all things are possible with God and prayer. I believe that a person who has committed homosexual acts can repent and live a celibate life. If I didn’t believe that, God wouldn’t be all-powerful. Obviously, the Bishop (as a legitimate teaching authority in the Church, I’m eager to defer to his judgment) believes that the challenge of avoiding this sin is so great as to require extra-ordinary requirements for seminary.

At the same time, I’m hopeful that the Church will someday be able to figure out a way to allow these men called by God to be Priests. If a person with “thoughts/desires” to commit sin was a measure for not being a Priest, we’d have no Priests. All of us are disordered and have sinful thoughts. The challenge is that we look to God to repel the temptations set before us by Satan and not act on these thoughts and desires. While a thought or a desire can still be sinful, they are never as serious as acting on them.

Note: Nothing in this post is meant to be an endorsement of homosexuality in thought or deed. It is a serious sin and I believe it is disordered. But all of us are sinners with different temptations that are difficult to repel. Personally, I have deep compassion for those that have to deal with the temptation of homosexual desires and pray for them.

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

Personally, I believe that all things are possible with God and prayer. I believe that a person who has committed homosexual acts can repent and live a celibate life. If I didn’t believe that, God wouldn’t be all-powerful. Obviously, the Bishop (as a legitimate teaching authority in the Church, I’m eager to defer to his judgment) believes that the challenge of avoiding this sin is so great as to require extra-ordinary requirements for seminary.

At the same time, I’m hopeful that the Church will someday be able to figure out a way to allow these men called by God to be Priests. If a person with “thoughts/desires” to commit sin was a measure for not being a Priest, we’d have no Priests. All of us are disordered and have sinful thoughts. The challenge is that we look to God to repel the temptations set before us by Satan and not act on these thoughts and desires. While a thought or a desire can still be sinful, they are never as serious as acting on them.

Not if one properly understands SSA (same sex attraction) as a disordered desire and a symptom of psycho-social developmental pathology. I entirely agree with the good Bishop “that “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,” even if they had been celibate for a decade or more”. Too many folks fail to appreciate how our sexuality affects all aspects of our human person. Having and managing a temptation to sinful thought (lust) is not the same as having a disordered sexual desire when determining fitness of a candidate for the priesthood.

I believe that it is false to portray the Church as denying “these men” the ability to respond to God’s call to the priesthood. The Church has been entrusted to assist these men in determining the authenticity and fitness of their calling to the holy priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Church and God are not in oppostion to each other in screening, discernment and formation of candidates for the priesthood.

 

[Libero]

" even if they had been celibate for a decade or more.

Doe this not seem abit steep to anoyne else? I do fully understand where the bishop is coming from, but what have homosexuals got to do to proves themselves? I find that this statement would be against church teaching. His statement does not put across the right message about the catholic church.

Also does Archbishop O’brien actually have any seminaries under his jurisidction?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Not if one properly understands SSA (same sex attraction) as a disordered desire and a symptom of psycho-social developmental pathology.

I don’t have this expertise. I’ll defer to the Church’s judgment.

Too many folks fail to appreciate how our sexuality affects all aspects of our human person. Having and managing a temptation to sinful thought (lust) is not the same as having a disordered sexual desire when determining fitness of a candidate for the priesthood.

I totally appreciate it. But I also believe that any disorder can be overcome with the grace of God. I also believe that disorder and a proclivity to a particular sin are basically the same. What I sense here is that Felra is making a judgmetn that this proclivity is of such an evil magnitude as to warrant special consideration. Not that I disagree or agree, this line of argument of determining which pathologies are worse than other might be getting into an area that is outside the purview of the laity and should be left to trained experts and the Church authorities.

I believe that it is false to portray the Church as denying “these men” the ability to respond to God’s call to the priesthood.

If a person is called to be a Priest and they can’t be one becuase of their sexual desire or the fact they chose to be married, the Church is denying them the ability to respond to their call. It is however totally within the purview of the Church to do so as you eloquently articulate below.

The Church has been entrusted to assist these men in determining the authenticity and fitness of their calling to the holy priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Church and God are not in oppostion to each other in screening, discernment and formation of candidates for the priesthood.

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

But I also believe that any disorder can be overcome with the grace of God. I also believe that disorder and a proclivity to a particular sin are basically the same. What I sense here is that Felra is making a judgmetn that this proclivity is of such an evil magnitude as to warrant special consideration. Not that I disagree or agree, this line of argument of determining which pathologies are worse than other might be getting into an area that is outside the purview of the laity and should be left to trained experts and the Church authorities.

It most absolutely is all about degree of disorder. To equate and downgrade the psychological disorder of SSA with a “proclivity to a particular sin” evidences ignorance and minimization of the varying degrees of impairment that persons with SSA are afflicted in the depths of their psychological make-up.

How many “proclivities” have resulted in the cost of millions of dollars, monumental scandal to the Church, and untold human suffering of the innocent victims of untreated SSA in the priesthood? No judgment here, just logical conclusions based on the the facts as we are all aware of. I highly suspect any Catholic who questions that SSA warrants special consideration (orthodox bishops certainly do) in the screening and qualification of seminarian candidates, and whose best interest they have in mind. I choose to align with the Shepherds of the Church in expressing my thoughts and opinions and cited sources.

To better inform yourself on the topic, try this link for starters as a “purview” of what the experts have to say about SSA as a symptom of a serious and treatable psychological disorder: http://couragerc.net/CMAStatement.html#5)%20THERAPY%20THERAPY)

 

[Orionthehunter]

It most absolutely is all about degree of disorder. To equate and downgrade the psychological disorder of SSA with a “proclivity to a particular sin” evidences ignorance and minimization of the varying degrees of impairment that persons with SSA are afflicted in the depths of their psychological make-up.

Felra, you obviously are incapable of reading the entire substance of what I said in my previous quote. Unlike your attitude of being a trained expert on this subject, I also humbly said that I have no expertise on this issue except to know it appears to be disorder very difficult to overcome but I’m willing to defer to the judgment of experts chosen by the Church and the Church itself. I’m sure that others who disagree with you (I neither agree or disagree about the pathology as I am not an expert) would be able to go toe to toe with you on dueling experts.

“Personally, I believe that all things are possible with God and prayer. I believe that a person who has committed homosexual acts can repent and live a celibate life. If I didn’t believe that, God wouldn’t be all-powerful. Obviously, the Bishop (as a legitimate teaching authority in the Church, I’m eager to defer to his judgment) believes that the challenge of avoiding this sin is so great as to require extra-ordinary requirements for seminary.”

How many “proclivities” have resulted in the cost of millions of dollars, monumental scandal to the Church, and untold human suffering of the innocent victims of untreated SSA in the priesthood?

You are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. While most of the attention has gone to homosexual pedophilia by priests, there has been also substantial heterosexual pedophilia.

No judgment here, just logical conclusions based on the the facts as we are all aware of.

Again, see above. Your comment references the “facts” and distorts them. The scandal has been about pedophilia. Prohibiting homosexuals will not affect heterosexual misconduct (with children or adults).

I highly suspect any Catholic who questions that SSA warrants special consideration (orthodox bishops certainly do) in the screening and qualification of seminarian candidates, and whose best interest they have in mind. I choose to align with the Shepherds of the Church in expressing my thoughts and opinions and cited sources.

I hate to repeat myself, but the following is from a previous post of mine. I wish you wouldn’t cloak your comments as though you were holier than thou/expert and condemn me as some heretic/ignoranomous. “Obviously, the Bishop (as a legitimate teaching authority in the Church, I’m eager to defer to his judgment) believes that the challenge of avoiding this sin is so great as to require extra-ordinary requirements for seminary.”

To better inform yourself on the topic, try this link for starters as a “purview” of what the experts have to say about SSA as a symptom of a serious and treatable psychological disorder:

Thank you for your concern that I be less ignorant. I am not an expert on homosexuality and have neither the time or inclination to become one so I’ll pass on your suggestion. I will however continue to hope and pray that the unlimited power of prayer and God’s grace will give all people tempted by homosexual desires the strength to resist the temptation and the humility to repent if they fail. I will not give up on them.

 

[miguel]

Orionthehunter:

You are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. While most of the attention has gone to homosexual pedophilia by priests, there has been also substantial heterosexual pedophilia…The scandal has been about pedophilia. Prohibiting homosexuals will not affect heterosexual misconduct (with children or adults).

The US Bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to compile the abuse statistics. I have included a link to the executive summary of their report (also mentioned in the above article). The abuse statistics are much more about homosexuality than pedophilia.

usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/exec.pdf

 

[felra]

Felra, you obviously are incapable

of reading the entire substance of what I said in my previous quote. Unlike your attitude of being a trained expert on this subject, I also humbly said that I have no expertise on this issue except to know it appears to be disorder very difficult to overcome but I’m willing to defer to the judgment of experts chosen by the Church and the Church itself. I’m sure that others who disagree with you (I neither agree or disagree about the pathology as I am not an expert) would be able to go toe to toe with you on dueling experts.
My alluding to and citing “expert” and authortative sources does not constitute having an “attitude of being a trained expert” or “wanna be” status. I ask that you please critique my presentation of ideas and not me–that is unbecoming and uncharitable and a technique often employed to manipulate the discussion at hand (you know, these are “discussion” forums). I did in fact read the entire substance of your opinion, and have no idea what you seem to think I am missing? Can you be more specific?

“Personally, I believe that all things are possible with God and prayer. I believe that a person who has committed homosexual acts can repent and live a celibate life. If I didn’t believe that, God wouldn’t be all-powerful. Obviously, the Bishop (as a legitimate teaching authority in the Church, I’m eager to defer to his judgment) believes that the challenge of avoiding this sin is so great as to require extra-ordinary requirements for seminary.”

You are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. While most of the attention has gone to homosexual pedophilia by priests, there has been also substantial heterosexual pedophilia.

Again, see above. Your comment references the “facts” and distorts them. The scandal has been about pedophilia. Prohibiting homosexuals will not affect heterosexual misconduct (with children or adults).

There are ample threads entirely devoted to clarifying that vast majority of sexual predation was by priests with teenage boys, which is correctly defined as pederasty. Again, you have your facts and terms all wrong. I find that to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion, it is incumbent to make a minimal effort to research to know what the extent of a topic entails. I suggest research the CA forums for more information on this phenomenon and difference in terminology.

I hate to repeat myself, but the following is from a previous post of mine. I wish you wouldn’t cloak your comments as though you were holier than thou/expert

and condemn me as some heretic/ignoranomous. “Obviously, the Bishop (as a legitimate teaching authority in the Church, I’m eager to defer to his judgment) believes that the challenge of avoiding this sin is so great as to require extra-ordinary requirements for seminary.”
Your point is lost on me. Can you be more specific?

Why the need to digress to derogatory labelling when I have not at all done so toward you? I find this to be highly unbecoming and uncharitable behavior for a Catholic forum. If you really feel that I am being condescending, then please cite my specific wording, otherwise you are guilty of attempting to distract and manipulate the discussion off topic.

Thank you for your concern that I be less ignorant. I am not an expert on homosexuality and have neither the time or inclination to become one so I’ll pass on your suggestion.

This speaks for itself.

 

[Orionthehunter]

miguel:

The US Bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to compile the abuse statistics. I have included a link to the executive summary of their report (also mentioned in the above article). The abuse statistics are much more about homosexuality than pedophilia.

usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/exec.pdf

The document starts out as follows:

The study of sexual abuse of **minors ** by Catholic priests and deacons resulting in this report was authorized and paid for by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) pursuant to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (Charter) unanimously adopted by the USCCB at its June 2002 meeting. (emphasis added by Orionthehunter)

We might argue at what is pedophilia I guess. I found this definition on the web: Sexual attraction to a child; clinically, a person sixteen years of age or older who is at least five years older than the child. Pedophiles will prefer males, females, or both. Generally considered to be an incurable mental disorder.

If my use of pedophilia was incorrect as I don’t know when one ceases to be a “child” used in the definition and instead should have used “sexual abuse of minors”, I amend my posts with “SAOM” rather than “pedophilia”. Thus, the abuses outlined in the report is 100% about the abuse of minors and 81% were also homosexual abuses. Note the offense characteristics from the report.

• The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81%of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

I accept conventional expert opinion that pedophilia is incurable. I know the nature/nuture argument means that no such consensus exists on whether homosexuality is a “pathology” as Felra referred to it that can not be cured/reformed/reprogrammed. But I do believe that with prayer and grace from God, a homosexual can live a chaste, celibate life.

 

[miguel]

Orionthehunter:

The document starts out as follows:

The study of sexual abuse of minors…

Not all abuse of minors is pedophilia. Pedophilia is the abuse of pre-adolescent children. 78% of the abuse was of older children. 81% of all victims were male.

Orionthehunter:

But I do believe that with prayer and grace from God, a homosexual can live a chaste, celibate life.

I don’t disagree. But this doesn’t mean the priesthood should be unconditionally open to them. As a group, they have done alot of damage within the Church. And it would be folly to ignore that in setting policy for the seminaries. The 4% of priests who have been implicated in this also indicates the extent of damage that can be done by a relatively small percentage of the population.

 

[Orionthehunter]

miguel:

I don’t disagree. But this doesn’t mean the priesthood should be unconditionally open to them. As a group, they have done alot of damage within the Church. And it would be folly to ignore that in setting policy for the seminaries. The 4% of priests who have been implicated in this also indicates the extent of damage that can be done by a relatively small percentage of the population.

I think we are in agreement. I am furious about the damage they ahve done and I’m not just talking about the money. Because of the abuses of 4% of the Priests, 96% of the Priest can’t have young people (male or female) in private situations when they might need the counsel of their Priest or a Mentor. While not minimizing the carnage the abuse did to the victims, how many new “victims” will we have because troubled kids can’t have private conversations with the good holy Priests?

While I wouldn’t use the word “folly” when I disagreed with a decision of a Bishop, I do agree at this time with the policy described in this thread. However, I will pray that we will continue to strive to understand the nature of the abuse and the psychologicial characteristics of the Priests that committed these abuses such that we eliminate the abuse. Keep in mind that 19% of the abuses weren’t homosexual acts. And, in my mind, sexual abuse of young people is like rape- not about the sex but about power, meaning that maybe the only reason there were more male victims isn’t about homosexuality but because males were more “available”. If this is the case, while prudent based on what we know now, we may be focusing on the wrong psychological defect.

Finally, I acknowledge that I am clouded by my inability to give up on God’s power to reform people and give them the strenght to perservere over their temptations. And I fear that if we as Catholics just decide that homosexuality is “incurable” we will begin to equate the sin with the person as opposed to hating the sin and loving the sinner.

 

[Della]

Della wrote:

One cannot be celibate from committing a sin.

I am addressing celibacy as abstaining from lawful (God’s law), ordered sex, not from unlawful, disordered sex. Sorry made it unclear. Please reread my statements with this understanding and I think you will see what I mean if not agree with me.

OTH wrote:

Not true. As a married man, my wife and I could have a celibate marriage and we would not be celibate from committing a sin.

I understood the rest, but am confused what you mean here. No doubt my fault. I agree with you, if I understand you, and think you made my point for me. You and your wife refraining from sex is no sin. Homosexual couples cannot be said to be refraining from lawful sex, so they are not being celibate, according to the proper understanding of lawful sex, but are simply no longer sinning.

 

[miguel]

Orionthehunter:

Finally, I acknowledge that I am clouded by my inability to give up on God’s power to reform people and give them the strenght to perservere over their temptations. And I fear that if we as Catholics just decide that homosexuality is “incurable” we will begin to equate the sin with the person as opposed to hating the sin and loving the sinner.

All of us experience temptations. Not all of us suffer with both disorders and temptations. There is a difference. The presence of a disorder could make a temptation more difficult to resist and for purposes of this discussion, could make a person a higher risk around minors. The homosexual inclination is a disorder according to Catholic teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger, while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, released the following document. He went so far as to imply that the extent of the disorder could even reduce or eliminate a person’s moral culpability for homosexual acts. Of course this is God’s judgement to make. The Bishops judgement comes into play in setting policy that minimizes the risk to kids. And there is a culpability and a responsibility that goes along with that as well.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOP.HTM

 

[seeker63]

I do wish somebody at some official Church level would get very specific in defining terms. There are any number of situations and conditions that could be labelled as “gay”/“SSA,” ranging from people who feel the inclination or temptation and do nothing, to those who may masturbate to gay thoughts or look at gay pornography, to those that have experimented with others a few times, to those who actively engage in sex with other men, to out-of-the-closet, rainbow flag-waving, “Gay Pride Parade” marching activists. That’s a pretty wide spectrum.

 

[dennisknapp]

Della:

The bishop is right but for the wrong reasons. Gay sexual relations are intrinsically wrong, therefore the term “celibacy” does not apply to their refraining from having such relations.

One may as well say that an adulterer was remaining celibate from relations with women other than his wife. Both adultery and homosexual sex are sins. One cannot be celibate from committing a sin.

Celibacy is refraining from heterosexual intercourse not from homosexual intercourse, plain and simple.

The priesthood ought to be made up of men who are voluntarily giving up having a wife and children, in other words, who will remain celibate. A homosexual cannot make that commitment since he is not giving up wife and children but only keeping free from sin, something we are all called to do.

The priest represents the father, the husband of the people of God. A homosexual cannot represent that since he would not have been a father or a husband in his life outside the priesthood.

Well put! Amen.

Peace

 

[miguel]

seeker63:

I do wish somebody at some official Church level would get very specific in defining terms. There are any number of situations and conditions that could be labelled as “gay”/“SSA,” ranging from people who feel the inclination or temptation and do nothing, to those who may masturbate to gay thoughts or look at gay pornography, to those that have experimented with others a few times, to those who actively engage in sex with other men, to out-of-the-closet, rainbow flag-waving, “Gay Pride Parade” marching activists. That’s a pretty wide spectrum.

The Church leaves the business of characterizing this spectrum (i.e., the extent of the disorder) up to the mental health profession. The mental health profession, at least in the US, no longer officially recognizes SSA as a disorder (although individual therapists do). Since this position is at odds with Catholic teaching, the Bishops can’t rely on them for guidance. That said, setting policy to protect the flock is still the Bishop’s responsibility. And more than ever, it is up to parents to watch out for their children.