But, I didn’t say someone who has stolen money, of either great or small amounts, but someone prone to stealing. I think it obvious that such a person ought not be put in a situation in which he would be daily tempted to steal. Common sense.
Libero: A good point but I still can’t consider it to be conclusive evidence, we are all prone to sin are we not? Secondly I don’t think stealing can be compared to sexual sin, they are entirely different, I would generally say that a person considering priesthood would find it easier to steal, than to commit a grave sexual sin; this is rather weak though.
Della: Of course the comparison isn’t conclusive evidence. I didn’t intend it to be. It is just a comparison, but an apt one because the propensity for a man towards a particular sin makes him a poor candidate for particular vocations. So, someone who can’t keep their fingers out of the coffers shouldn’t be given a position in which he will be tempted to do so. By the same token a man who has deviant sexual desires ought not to be placed in a vocation in which he would be exposed to constant temptation. Surely that is plain enough for anyone to understand.
People prone to any kind of sexual deviation ought not to be admitted to the seminary. Once again, so he cannot bring scandal on the Church. Common sense.
Libero: All men are prone to sinful sexual desire, all of these deires can bring scandal upon the church, we cannot ban homosexuals as an attempt at bringing order to our church, it won’t work. Other churches have homosexual priests, they don’t have such grave problems, does that not say something?
Della: But, not all men are prone to
deviant sexual desire, which is what we are talking about here. And it doesn’t matter what other churches decide for their ministerial positions, the Catholic Church ought to be more circumspect than others because we are the Church founded by Christ, not by the whim of this human founder or that.
Quote:
that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable."
Libero: Why does the church bother calling homosexuals to chastity, and then make statements like this, catholic homosexuals must be completely demoralised.
Della: I don’t see what is demoralizing about saying that people prone to sexual deviancy are not culpable/as guilty as those who don’t suffer from such a disability. It’s meant to be a statement of mercy not of condemnation, which you seem to have missed.
Libero: By banning homosexuals are church is saying in a sense that they are incapable of overcoming their disorder, even in a place where they shall come into the most contact with God. Is this not doubting the ability for people to overcome disorders with Gods help?
Della: No, by banning homosexuals the Church is saying that the priesthood is a high and holy calling that is not to be made into a politic football nor used by anyone to push agendas. A priest is a priest for life, and the priesthood is for all eternity not just during times when some people feel homosexuals ought to be in seminaries as if the seminary was a place in which to treat sexual deviancy.
The seminary is a place to form priests who will serve the Church and the world. Those ought not to be admitted who would find it an occasion of sin or even a near occasion of sin. The Church has to think of the good of the whole of the Church which has to live with the effects of the sins of a few who never ought to have been ordained in the first place. And those people include any man with any form of sexual deviancy at all, be it homosexuality or pedophilia or any other such problem.
