Archbishop O'Brien says gays should be banned from seminaries

[Orionthehunter]

miguel:

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

While I agree that there is a difference between disorders that are so ingrained that it isn’t humanly possible to overcome them, I think as the Church Militant we need to be extremely careful in making judgments that should be left to God. An example where it is appropriate in my opinion is how we now treat suicide victims and give them a Catholic funeral, burial and specifically have prayer groups praying for their souls. But on other matters, if we begin to characterize certain behaviour as related to a disorder, the sinner may come to believe they have a license to do it (as in, I only do it becuase I can’t help it). I think that the Church Militant needs to approach sinful acts as something that can be overcome by applying our will and reason (gifts from God), prayer by both sinner and the church, and a belief that graces from God can overcome teh specific human weakness.

 

[fix]

miguel:

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

Just to clarify a fine point I want to point out the actual text:

1. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases.* In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance*;or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

 

[Libero]

There have been some very interesting posts here.

Having said this, I do still feel that what Archbishop O’brien has said is not fully obedient to the catechisms instructions. It seems to me that prohibiting a homosexual man who has been celibate for 9 years is unfair and rather extreme. This does not set across the message the church preaches about accepting homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity. The church here also seems to be in direct contradiction to it’s own ideas of accepting sinners and forgiving them.

Many people have before talked about God’s law, however God does not state that a homosexual person capable of being chaste should be excluded from the priesthood. If we are going to consider what the bishop says about the topic, then I hope we also consider what other bishops such as Cardinal O’Brien and Cardinal Mahony have to say on the topic.

Also, I am unsure about what people often say about ‘the scandal’, whilst I cannot claim to know anyting about how it has affected America, I have had some experience in discussing the problem in Ireland and England. I have only ever heard people (usually impressionable atheists) talk negatively about the church due to the paedophillia scandal, not any homosexual scandal.

1. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

P.S. Don’t suppose anyone could explain this abit, I can’t make head nor tail of it.

 

[felra]

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.

I totally concur. It is amazing how many folks simply refuse to consider the common sense understanding and logic of what identity, role and sacrifice that a man called to the priesthood needs to be able to embrace in the fullness of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

For those folks who prefer/need to hear this from a higher ecclesial authority to accept, here you go:

“Celibacy, he says, involves a sacrifice of a good for a greater good. But the homosexual person is not making such a sacrifice in taking a vow or promise of celibacy, because he is not attracted to marriage. The second difficulty is that the homosexual candidate cannot relate to the Church as spouse in the same way as a heterosexual candidate does. Even if the homosexual candidate is chaste, he lacks ‘certain important elements due to SSA,’ and this could be another reason for proper authority to have a prudent doubt about him.” (Msgr. Andrew Baker, from the staff of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome). (http://www.couragerc.org/SSA in the Seminary.htm)

…and …

”D’Arcy, now bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese in Indiana, said the church must look for men whom children can respect – ''men who would be good husbands, men who would be good fathers," he said. In an interview after the service, D’Arcy acknowledged that his reference to ''good husbands . . . good fathers" conveyed his belief that only heterosexual men should be allowed to become priests. He said men in the priesthood must embrace celibacy.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma…y_109021340 4/

 

[fix]

Libero:

Having said this, I do still feel that what Archbishop O’brien has said is not fully obedient to the catechisms instructions.

What is in contradiction to the CCC? The last Pope said this:

**

Renewed care in selecting candidates for the seminary

It is my duty therefore to recommend a renewed attentiveness in the selection of vocations for the seminary, with the use of all available means for coming to an adequate knowledge of the candidates, above all, from the moral and affective point of view. Let no bishop feel excluded from this duty of conscience for which he will have to render an account directly to God. It would be deplorable that, by a mistaken act of tolerance, he would ordain young men who are immature or exhibit clear signs of affective disorders, who, as is sadly known, could cause serious confusion in the consciousness of the faithful with obvious harm for the whole Church.
Pope John Paul II
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2brazb.htm **

P.S. Don’t suppose anyone could explain this abit, I can’t make head nor tail of it.

It is very clear to me. The world says that people commit homosexual acts because they are “wired” that way and so it is licit. The Church says they are not destined to sin and with God’s grace may lead a holy life.

 

[Libero]

What is in contradiction to the CCC? The last Pope said this:

I have highlighted the part I felt was in contradiction to the CCC, I think that whilst PJP2 was correct in saying that seminaries should be careful in choosing candidates, 10 years is unfair. How can a homosexual person feel welcome in our church, when there are bishops saying that homosexuals who have been chaste for over 10 years are not capable of being a priest. This would not insipre them on their embarkment to chastitiy. A sorrow fact remains that many bishops make comments about homosexuals who have being chaste for 10 years are not capable of being seminarians, but no bishop continously reminds us that a heterosexual who has grossly disobeyed celibacy for over 10 years should not enter the seminary. It does seem like homosexuals are the only people who the church wants to filter out from seminarys.

It is very clear to me. The world says that people commit homosexual acts because they are “wired” that way and so it is licit. The Church says they are not destined to sin and with God’s grace may lead a holy life.

It would be clear to you, you are much older and I assume much more intelligent. Cardinal Ratzinger had a very established vocabulary and also uses terms that are not as easily understood by people who are not very knowledgeable in the matter. His document was afterall addressed to bishops.

 

[mercygate]

Libero:

There have been some very interesting posts here.

It seems to me that prohibiting a homosexual man who has been celibate for 9 years is unfair and rather extreme.

The damage done by homosexual priests has also been unfair and extreme.

This does not set across the message the church preaches about accepting homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity.

As others have noted, nobody is “entitled” to priesthood. We’re in a bad time here and for now, at least, the decision not to invite the problem into the house seems prudent.

The church here also seems to be in direct contradiction to it’s own ideas of accepting sinners and forgiving them.

The Church got itself into a heap o’ trouble by equating “forgiving” with letting things go on as if a problem had never arisen. And nowhere does God’s law or the discipline of the Church say that we must “accept” sexual immorality in the Priesthood. Scripture speaks strongly that it must be rejected. Moreover, if we have not learned a lesson from our experience, we are simply asking for more abuse.

Many people have before talked about God’s law, however God does not state that a homosexual person capable of being chaste should be excluded from the priesthood. If we are going to consider what the bishop says about the topic, then I hope we also consider what other bishops such as Cardinal O’Brien and Cardinal Mahony have to say on the topic.

I am sure these opinions have been considered, weighed, and been found wanting.

Also, I am unsure about what people often say about ‘the scandal’, whilst I cannot claim to know anyting about how it has affected America, I have had some experience in discussing the problem in Ireland and England. I have only ever heard people (usually impressionable atheists) talk negatively about the church due to the paedophillia scandal, not any homosexual scandal.

It has been a devastating blow in America. Paedophilia has been only a miniscule part of the scandal. More than 80% of the abuses were against adolescent boys, not children. This is almost exclusively a homosexual issue.

By no means would anybody say that there are no homosexuals who could be trusted to fulfil a vocation to celibacy. (I am pretty sure I could name some outstanding Priests who manage this beautifully.) But right now, we are in a position where the Church would be blind, deaf, dumb and stupid to ignore the facts.

 

[Libero]

It has been a devastating blow in America. Paedophilia has been only a miniscule part of the scandal. More than 80% of the abuses were against adolescent boys, not children. This is almost exclusively a homosexual issue.

By no means would anybody say that there are no homosexuals who could be trusted to fulfil a vocation to celibacy. (I am pretty sure I could name some outstanding Priests who manage this beautifully.) But right now, we are in a position where the Church would be blind, deaf, dumb and stupid to ignore the facts.

The problem in this thread and virtually all other threads on this forum of such a nature, is that people talk about ‘the church’ when they actually mean ’ the catholic church in the USA’. This is always something that disappoints me. Virtually no other country in the world has suffered damage to the extent of the church in America due to homosexuality. No other country has really come close, so why so often, do people think that it would be a good idea all round to ban homosexuals from entering seminary in the church? Any action that is taken on the matter should be thought of in realtion to how it shall affect the entire world, not just America, the church would be stupid to act strongly on a situation that has happened primarially in America.

The church should not act on situations that may be temporary.

 

[bengeorge]

This is the one-billionth time this has been discussed on this forum, but I wanted to say that you all have done a good job of civility and are at least interesting to read. (Miguel and Orion specifically)

I agree with the characterization of homosexuality as a disrorder. It is, in a way, a type of sexual schizophrenia.

To say that the problem is with pedophilia and not homosexuality is a bit of a distortion of the situation.

An excellent resource for all interested in this discussion is the book by Philip Jenkins called “Pedophiles and Priests”.

 

[mercygate]

Libero:

The problem in this thread and virtually all other threads on this forum of such a nature, is that people talk about ‘the church’ when they actually mean ’ the catholic church in the USA’. This is always something that disappoints me. Virtually no other country in the world has suffered damage to the extent of the church in America due to homosexuality. No other country has really come close, so why so often, do people think that it would be a good idea all round to ban homosexuals from entering seminary in the church? Any action that is taken on the matter should be thought of in realtion to how it shall affect the entire world, not just America, the church would be stupid to act strongly on a situation that has happened primarially in America.

The church should not act on situations that may be temporary.

My personal suggestion has always been a 10-year moratorium. Don’t be so sure that other nations do not have this problem deeper and wider than any of us would care to believe.

 

[Della]

The problem in this thread and virtually all other threads on this forum of such a nature, is that people talk about ‘the church’ when they actually mean ’ the catholic church in the USA’. This is always something that disappoints me. Virtually no other country in the world has suffered damage to the extent of the church in America due to homosexuality. No other country has really come close, so why so often, do people think that it would be a good idea all round to ban homosexuals from entering seminary in the church? Any action that is taken on the matter should be thought of in realtion to how it shall affect the entire world, not just America, the church would be stupid to act strongly on a situation that has happened primarially in America.

The church should not act on situations that may be temporary.

I can’t agree for prudential reasons. If you know someone is prone to the temptation of stealing you don’t put him in charge of your money. It’s really that simple. We are talking about a problem that is not confined to the USA for homosexuals live in every culture and country in the world.

If the Church doesn’t ordain gay men it is less likely to have problems associated with gay behavior, which is intrinsically disordered. By the same token a heterosexual man addicted to sex wouldn’t make a good candidate for the priesthood, either, lest anyone think I am discriminating instead of merely citing why the Church ought to practice a bit of common sense in these matters.

 

[Libero]

y personal suggestion has always been a 10-year moratorium. Don’t be so sure that other nations do not have this problem deeper and wider than any of us would care to believe.

I do understand why bishop o’brien is imposing over a 10 year rule, I just think it is too extreme and unfair. I would consider 5 years. The church is jumping from one extreme to another, without taking rational steps. At first it was we’ll forgive them, they wont re offend. Now they are imposing a 10 year moratorium.

I can’t agree for prudential reasons. If you know someone is prone to the temptation of stealing you don’t put him in charge of your money. It’s really that simple. We are talking about a problem that is not confined to the USA for homosexuals live in every culture and country in the world.

If the Church doesn’t ordain gay men it is less likely to have problems associated with gay behavior, which is intrinsically disordered. By the same token a heterosexual man addicted to sex wouldn’t make a good candidate for the priesthood, either, lest anyone think I am discriminating instead of merely citing why the Church ought to practice a bit of common sense in these matters.

I think thw whole money stealing issue is dependable. If the person is known to have once taken some money from someone elses wallet, then I would find it in my heart to forgive them, something the catholic church encourages. If on the otherhand the person frquently steals large amounts, even from those he loves dearly, then no, I would not entrust my money to him.

I do agree, anyone addicted to sex, or sexual activity should be rejected from a seminary (regardless of sexual orientation) however we cannot say that because certain things are related to a particular type of person then they should be rejected. It is fact that more Americans own guns than Italians. Much more, but should we reject Americans from the priesthood? Ofcourse not. Common sense would be to evaluate each person separately and see what they are like, rather than to say all homosexuals should be rejected from the priesthood.

 

[Orionthehunter]

bengeorge:

This is the one-billionth time this has been discussed on this forum, but I wanted to say that you all have done a good job of civility and are at least interesting to read. (Miguel and Orion specifically)

I agree with the characterization of homosexuality as a disrorder. It is, in a way, a type of sexual schizophrenia.

To say that the problem is with pedophilia and not homosexuality is a bit of a distortion of the situation. QUOTE]

Wow, thanks beng for your nice comment as others have found me a heretic, dissident, promoting an agenda, and ignorant. LOL

I want to repeat that I didn’t understand that pedophilia was only for people of an age of under 10 so my use of that word should have said “sexual abuse of minors.” And, while I’m not an expert on this issue, I raised the following point and would love some feedback on this. My heart remains broken over the abuse scandal as I am a product of broken home adn I reflect with a great deal of gratitude to two different Priests who mentored me during this period. It is my fear that while we struggle through this trial good holy Priests (at least 96% of them) will be hesitant to reach out in timely and personal ways when our young people need them and many more young people will be victims in other ways, including having abortions.

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.

 

[mercygate]

Orionthehunter:

I raised the following point and would love some feedback on this. My heart remains broken over the abuse scandal as I am a product of broken home adn I reflect with a great deal of gratitude to two different Priests who mentored me during this period. It is my fear that while we struggle through this trial good holy Priests (at least 96% of them) will be hesitant to reach out in timely and personal ways when our young people need them and many more young people will be victims in other ways, including having abortions.

No doubt you are correct. But at this point, I have an equal conviction that this problem will be easier to handle than the problem of sexually predatory Priests.

 

[bengeorge]

Orionthehunter:

It is my fear that while we struggle through this trial good holy Priests (at least 96% of them) will be hesitant to reach out in timely and personal ways when our young people need them and many more young people will be victims in other ways, including having abortions.

And not just the priests.

As a male CCE teacher, you better believe that I make sure to have other adults around at all times, and you better believe that I don’t ever hug kids, even if they ask to give me one. (I make up the excuse that I have a little cold)

I would love to be more involved in my students life, but I can’t. “Gettin’ a little too close there, eh?” you can hear the other teachers thinking, “What’s your angle? What are you tryin’ to pull?”

Have any of you been to VIRTUS training? It’s a bunch of actors recreating the testimonies of abused people, so that we know how bad it feels to be abused (is this news???) and so that we know exactly who is doing the abuse: men men men.

As one of only two men in the room of fifty women, I felt the eyes on the back of my neck as the women looked around for examples of possible perverts.

And we wonder why no men want to sign up to teach CCE!!

I would love to work fulltime as a teacher, but the liability is too high. In the course of a 20~30 year career, a male teacher WILL have someone accuse him of impropriety.

Sometimes you’re lucky and there is evidence that proves the accuser is lying.
Sometimes you’re lucky and you have a principal who will go to bat for you.

Sometimes you’re not.

 

[Orionthehunter]

mercygate:

No doubt you are correct. But at this point, I have an equal conviction that this problem will be easier to handle than the problem of sexually predatory Priests.

Mercy, I totally have great understanding of your perspective and it is obvious that is where the Bishop is coming from. At the same time, I just hope that all of us remain diligent that we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. While in the past it was common for Priests to be active mentors for troubled youth similar to Boy Scout leaders. Now, just as the Catholic Church is struggling with sexual abuse of minors, all scout leaders are guilty be association when in both cases the predators are a small percentage of the Priests/Scout Leaders. In the meantime, alot of good is not being done and the sooner it all gets behind us, the sooner the reputations of our good holy Priests and Scout Leaders can be restored to their rightful place.

 

[mercygate]

Orionthehunter:

Mercy, I totally have great understanding of your perspective and it is obvious that is where the Bishop is coming from. At the same time, I just hope that all of us remain diligent that we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. While in the past it was common for Priests to be active mentors for troubled youth similar to Boy Scout leaders. Now, just as the Catholic Church is struggling with sexual abuse of minors, all scout leaders are guilty be association when in both cases the predators are a small percentage of the Priests/Scout Leaders. In the meantime, alot of good is not being done and the sooner it all gets behind us, the sooner the reputations of our good holy Priests and Scout Leaders can be restored to their rightful place.

Indeed. And it is no comfort to lay THIS problem at the feet of those who already bear so much blame for betraying the trust of the faithful.

 

[Libero]

As a male CCE teacher,

What is a CCE teacher, like a catholic children educator or something? I’m probably gonna feel very stupid when you explain

 

[miguel]

Orionthehunter:

…if we begin to characterize certain behaviour as related to a disorder, the sinner may come to believe they have a license to do it (as in, I only do it becuase I can’t help it).

Cardinal Ratzinger said the same thing in the link I provided: “What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.” His statement before that suggests the possibility that in some cases, the disorder could reduce or remove culpability. What needs to be kept in mind is that homosexual persons are dealing with a disorder. The disorder plays a role in their behavior. It is an oversimplification to see it as an ordinary struggle with temptation. It is that. But it is more, and for some individuals, much more. Clarity on this point is crucial and will lead to proper policies being established…policies that protect the flock from predators.

Orionthehunter:

…I think that the Church Militant needs to approach sinful acts as something that can be overcome by applying our will and reason (gifts from God), prayer by both sinner and the church, and a belief that graces from God can overcome teh specific human weakness.

No doubt. But this is a separate matter from protecting the flock, something the Bishops are also obliged to do.

 

[felra]

Originally Posted by Orionthehunter*…if we begin to characterize certain behaviour as related to a disorder, the sinner may come to believe they have a license to do it (as in, I only do it becuase I can’t help it).*

Cardinal Ratzinger said the same thing in the link I provided: "What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive

and therefore inculpable."
Your point is lost on me. The cardinal’s statement addresses a compulsive behavior which by definition is: Compulsive, defn:***a)***An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation. b) An act or acts performed in response to such an impulse. However, this is quite different than rationalizing acting on (not resisting with God’s grace) a persistent sinful desire: “I only do it because I can’t help it”.

The disorder plays a role in their behavior. It is an oversimplification to see it as an ordinary struggle with temptation. It is that. But it is more, and for some individuals, much more.

A most important distinction to make. It is absolutely a matter of degree of temptation to act on a disordered, sinful desire.

Clarity on this point is crucial and will lead to proper policies being established…policies that protect the flock from predators.
No doubt. But this is a separate matter from protecting the flock, something the Bishops are also obliged to do.